Disclosure accountability perspectives in planning and reporting practices: a multidimensional analysis

In the dynamic and continuously evolving context of the 21st century, the transparency and accountability of organisations have become fundamental pillars for building trust with stakeholders and promoting sustainable development (Gray et al., 1995; O'Donovan, 2002). The increasing complexity of global challenges from managing intangible resources to ecological transition and digital transformation requires entities, both public and private, to adopt more sophisticated and multidimensional reporting practices (Grossi et al., 2020; Mancini et al., 2017). This has led to a significant expansion of standards and frameworks for disclosure, which now extend well beyond traditional financial metrics to encompass environmental, social, and governance (ESG) aspects (Janik et al., 2020; ESRS1, ESRS2), both in planning and reporting. A first strand of research has focused on analysing the disclosure practices adopted during the planning phase, particularly in new planning documents, namely the Integrated Activity and Organisation Plans (PIAO). Primarily, research has concentrated on a crucial area concerning the management and disclosure of Intellectual Capital (IC), recognised as one of the most important intangible assets for any organisation (Foss et al., 2003; Reed et al., 2006; Soetrisno, 2015). Although the concept of IC has been extensively explored, its application and disclosure within the public sector, and particularly universities, remain less investigated compared to the private sector (Dumay and Tull, 2007; Mulyadi et al., 2017; Pisano et al., 2017). Universities, as high knowledge-intensity organisations, generate and share knowledge, directly influencing their capacity to create value (Manes Rossi et al., 2018; Siboni et al., 2013). Their effectiveness in teaching, research, and third mission activities is closely linked to the management and dissemination of human, structural, and relational capital (Secundo et al., 2017; Arena et al., 2021). Subsequently, still on the subject of planning, research broadens to include accountability, or rather, the integration of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) into the strategic agendas of organisations. The United Nations' 2030 Agenda and its 17 SDGs represent a global framework for addressing critical societal challenges, ranging from poverty to climate change (United Nations, 2015). Universities are recognised as key actors in promoting the achievement of these objectives through their core missions of teaching, research, and third mission (Fuchs et al., 2023; Molas-Gallart et al., 2002; Urdari et al., 2017). The concept of "public value," defined as the sum of collective expectations of citizens towards public services (Moore, 1995), is closely related to the integration of SDGs into organisational strategies. The introduction of the PIAO in the Italian public sector, with the aim of harmonising and simplifying the integrated planning process (Gagliardo and Saporito, 2021), presents a new opportunity to examine how universities incorporate and report on the SDGs in their planning documents - an area that has remained underexplored until now (Horan, 2019). A second strand of research analyses disclosure practices within reporting documents, particularly sustainability reports. A further dimension of accountability that emerges strongly in the contemporary era is Corporate Digital Responsibility (CDR). While digital transformation offers unprecedented opportunities for efficiency and innovation, it also raises significant ethical, social, and environmental concerns related to the use of technologies such as Big Data, artificial intelligence, and the Internet of Things (Mancini et al., 2017; Tekic and Koroteev, 2019; Bednárová and Serpeninova, 2023; Lobschat et al., 2021; Bonson et al., 2023). CDR represents a new facet of corporate responsibility, focused on the impact of digital activities on stakeholders and the broader digital ecosystem (Driesens et al., 2017; Lobschat et al., 2021). Some scholars are debating whether CDR should be seen as an extension of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) or as an entirely distinct concept (Herden et al., 2021; Van der Merwe and Al Achkar, 2022; Mihale-Wilson et al., 2022). Despite growing interest in this area, the empirical literature on CDR disclosure in sustainability reports remains limited, particularly regarding the adoption of specific frameworks such as those developed by the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) (Mueller, 2022; Merbecks, 2023; Elliott and Copillah-Ali, 2024). Thirdly, in light of the intersection between digitalisation and sustainability, particularly with respect to carbon emissions, an analysis was conducted on how organisations manage and communicate carbon emissions related to their digital activities. The transition to a low-carbon economy and the achievement of climate-related SDGs (United Nations, 2015) are global imperatives that require a multifaceted approach, including ethical management and robust reporting of the environmental impacts of technology (Caldarelli et al., 2017). While digitalisation is often viewed as a driver of the green transition, it is equally important to assess its potential risks, such as increased emissions from data centres and the production of electronic devices (Lobschat et al., 2021; Gritsenko et al., 2024). In this context, carbon reporting, which involves the measurement and management of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Glenk, 2025; Carbon Chain, 2024), becomes crucial for transparent and accurate disclosure. To provide a unifying theoretical framework for the four contributions collected in this thesis, the work adopts an iterative model that links planning, implementation, reporting, and accountability. Planning tools, such as the PIAO, serve to translate regulatory expectations and stakeholder demands into strategic objectives, public value criteria, and operational priorities, incorporating intangible resources (intellectual capital) and SDGs. The digital strategies and actions defined during the planning phase then generate environmental, social, and governance impacts that require dedicated monitoring and the expansion of traditional reporting systems to include emerging topics such as digital responsibility and digitalization-related emissions. Reporting, through integrated documents and sustainability reports consistent with standards such as SASB or ESRS, plays the crucial role of verifying the alignment between planned objectives and achieved results, reducing information asymmetry towards stakeholders and providing useful evidence for governance and decision-making processes. Finally, the accountability process closes the loop: published information influences regulatory and managerial choices, fostering organizational learning and new planning iterations that progressively more coherently integrate intangible asset management, sustainability, and digital responsibility. This circular logic justifies the connection between the thesis chapters: planning research (chapters 1–2) show how priorities for IC and the SDGs emerge and are defined; the analysis of corporate reports (chapter 3) documents how digital responsibilities are communicated; the study of carbon reporting (chapter 4) directly connects digital choices and detectable environmental implications, thus providing an integrated and coherent picture of the disclosure and accountability dynamics in today's organizations. The overall objective is to contribute to understanding the dynamics of accountability in an era marked by rapid technological changes and increasing social expectations around planning and reporting. More specifically, this thesis is a of results from several research projects in which the candidate was involved during her doctoral studies. This thesis aims to systematically investigate the evolving landscape of disclosure across diverse organizational and thematic contexts. To achieve this objective, the research integrates four interrelated studies conducted by the candidate during her doctoral program. Rather than isolated inquiries, these articles contribute to a cohesive analysis of modern disclosure practices, each addressing a specific scholarly gap: the strategic role of IC within the PIAO of Italian public universities; the narrative framing of SDGs in the creation of public value; the implementation of CDR within sustainability reporting; and the conceptual nexus between digitalization disclosure and carbon emissions reporting. De Nicola, M., Fratini, S., “Intellectual Capital Disclosure of Italian Universities: An Exploratory Analysis of the Human Capital Dimension in the Piaos”, accepted paper at the Conference organised by EIASM, entitled 18th EIASM Interdisciplinary on Intangibles, Intellectual Capital, and Sustainability: Reporting, Governance, and Value Creation (22 September 2023). Subsequently, the paper was accepted and presented at the “Workshop Rivista Azienda Pubblica SIDREA 2024, at the Department of Economics “G. Fuà”, Polytechnic University of Marche, Ancona, Italy (12-13 September 2024). De Nicola, M., and Fratini S (2024). "La presenza degli SDGs nei PIAO 2023-2025 delle università italiane." European journal of volunteering and community-based projects 1.1 (2024): 82-91. https://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10669888 De Nicola, M., Fratini, S., “CDR in practice: an empirical investigation of SASB adopters' reports” accepted and presented at the XXI Conference of the Italian Chapter of the AIS - Growing in a digital and sustainable society, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Department of Economic and Social Sciences, Piacenza, Italy (11-12 October 2024). De Nicola, M., and Fratini S., “Gli impatti della digitalizzazione nel carbon reporting: un’analisi empirica” paper accepted and presented at the XIV WORKSHOP DELLA RIVISTA MANAGEMENT CONTROL, Università di Teramo (4 July 2025). Currently submitted to the journal. To make the object of analysis explicit, in this work "disclosure" means any information made public by the organization in planning and reporting documents. To connect the different thematic areas of research, a consistent analytical framework is applied to all studies, focusing on four main dimensions: • Thematic content, which includes intellectual capital, sustainability, and technological progress; • Linguistic style, which assesses the balance between qualitative narratives and quantitative indicators; • Time orientation, which distinguishes between retrospective reporting and forward-looking strategic planning; • Stakeholder engagement, which identifies the main recipients. This harmonized taxonomy facilitates effective comparison of disclosure practices, allowing research to go beyond the presence or absence of information to achieve a more in-depth assessment of information quality, measurability, and strategic alignment. To clarify the analytical role of the reporting adopted in this work, I propose an analytical distinction between three complementary approaches. Procedural reporting concerns the description of processes, controls, procedures, and regulatory requirements aimed at ensuring compliance and formal transparency. It includes, among other things, the adoption of governance tools, data governance protocols, and regulatory requirements and aims to certify procedural correctness and institutional accountability, primarily involving supervisory bodies, auditors, regulatory authorities, and management. Informational reporting focuses on providing relevant, comparable, and understandable information for various stakeholders. This includes disclosures regarding IC in plans, the integration of the SDGs, and the qualitative and quantitative sections of sustainability reports with the aim of reducing information asymmetries and supporting strategic assessments by investors, financiers, academic communities, users, partners, and civil society. Results-oriented reporting ultimately concerns the definition, measurement, and communication of objectives, indicators, results, forward-looking data to assess the effectiveness of actions and support strategic decisions. The primary recipients of this approach are investors, governing bodies and public funders, operational partners, and policy beneficiaries. Applying this interpretative framework to the contexts examined in this thesis clarifies roles and expectations: in the PIAO, the procedural dimension appears predominant in the mandatory sections on human resources and governance, while the informational and results-oriented dimensions reflect the degree of integration of intellectual capital and the SDGs with measurable objectives. In sustainability reports (and CDR disclosures), the procedural dimension manifests itself in the adoption of assurance standards and practices, the informational dimension in the communication of privacy and data security policies, and the results-oriented dimension in the presence (or absence) of quantitative metrics on digital performance. In carbon reporting related to digitalization, the procedural need to adopt GHG accounting standards must be integrated with timely information on digital emission sources (data centers, clouds, devices) and with scope-specific targets. This procedural informational results oriented distinction allows us to interpret the critical issues highlighted in the research the prevalence of historical and qualitative disclosure, the poor integration between digital strategies and ESG objectives, and the limited definition of measurable targets and guides the operational recommendations addressed to regulators and organizations: greater regulatory integration, standardized measurement criteria, and targeted stakeholder engagement for each reporting method. To investigate the disclosure processes under examination, this thesis analyses disclosure practices through a detailed review of the information disclosed. Methodologically, it adopts a qualitative research approach based on content analysis, selected for its flexibility and its ability to capture important nuances that quantitative methods might overlook (Guthrie et al., 2004; Krippendorff, 2004). Each study employs a rigorous methodological framework to analyse data, thereby generating new insights that can inform both future research and practical decision-making. The first paper examines IC disclosure in Italian universities, recognising IC as a crucial intangible asset for organisations (Foss et al., 2003; Reed et al., 2006; Soetrisno, 2015). This study explores how the integrated plans, specifically the Integrated Activity and Organisation Plans (PIAO), of Italian public universities describe the various components of IC and their contributions to the value creation process, with particular focus on human capital. The analysis specifically looks at the presence and effectiveness of IC-related information in the 2023/2025 PIAOs of 61 Italian public universities. The research context clearly shows that, despite extensive academic interest in IC disclosure in the private sector (Dumay and Tull, 2007; Mulyadi et al., 2017; Pisano et al., 2017), few studies have analysed IC disclosure in the public and university context (Ramirez, 2019; Nicolò et al., 2020; Manes-Rossi et al., 2020; Bonollo et al., 2022). This study aims to contribute to the literature by evaluating whether the PIAO can be considered as an innovative planning tool introduced in the Italian public sector (Deidda Gagliardo and Saporito, 2021; Deidda Gagliardo, 2024), has led to more effective disclosure of human capital information. The findings of this study provide initial empirical evidence of a growing dissemination of human capital data through the planning process, while also highlighting a lack of consistency in disclosure practices. The second paper continues the investigation into the planning and reporting practices of Italian universities, focusing on the integration of SDGs. The transition of the Italian public sector, triggered by the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (NRRP), has emphasised the need to generate multidimensional public value, with particular attention to non-financial aspects (Gagliardo and Saporito, 2021). The SDGs, defined by the United Nations' 2030 Agenda (United Nations, 2015), have emerged as a key tool for understanding strategies and performance impact. Universities, as crucial actors in sustainable development (Fuchs et al., 2023), play a significant role in achieving the SDGs. This study aims to identify the intensity with which various dimensions of public value, in line with the 17 SDGs, are reflected in the PIAOs of Italian universities. Despite the widely recognised role of universities in addressing global challenges, existing research has yet to employ the SDGs as an explicit framework for assessing public value in the context of PIAOs (Horan, 2019). This study aims to investigate whether and how, Italian universities are integrating sustainability and the SDGs into their strategic planning processes. Preliminary findings reveal a limited tendency to integrate SDGs into institutional strategic choices, highlighting the need for greater commitment to sustainability. The third paper shifts attention from university planning to corporate reporting, introducing the concept of CDR as a new dimension of sustainability. The rapid evolution of digital transformation, fuelled by technologies such as Big Data and Artificial Intelligence (Mancini et al., 2017; Tekic and Koroteev, 2019), has brought with it new responsibilities for companies. CDR is defined as a voluntary commitment that goes beyond legal requirements, extending to ethical considerations and fundamental values in data and information management (Driesens et al., 2017). There is an ongoing academic debate about whether CDR should be viewed as an extension of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) (Herden et al., 2021; Van der Merwe and Al Achkar, 2022) or as an autonomous concept in its own right (Lobschat et al., 2021; Mihale-Wilson et al., 2022). Despite this growing interest, empirical research on CDR disclosure within sustainability reports remains limited, especially with respect to the use of frameworks such as SASB (Mueller, 2022; Mihale-Wilson et al., 2022; Merbecks, 2023; Wynn and Jones, 2023; Elliott and Copillah-Ali, 2024). This study contributes to the literature on the topic of CDR by examining companies that adopt the SASB framework disclose CDR-related information. Preliminary findings suggest that only a small number of companies have integrated CDR themes into their reports, and that the disclosed information largely centres on data privacy and security, mainly concerning employees and customers. The fourth paper completes the multidimensional perspective by examining the impact of digitalisation on carbon reporting. Achieving the SDGs, particularly those related to climate action (United Nations, 2015), requires an integrated understanding of the environmental impact of digital transformation. Although digitalisation is often perceived as a driver for the green transition (Gritsenko et al., 2024), it is essential to also recognise its potentially negative impacts, such as increased emissions from data centres and the production of electronic devices (Lobschat et al., 2021; Caldarelli et al., 2017). In this context, organisations are called to adopt a broader notion of CDR, one that extends beyond traditional ESG considerations to address the ethical, social, and environmental implications of their digital activities (Lobschat et al., 2021). This study investigates how Italian energy-sector companies address the dual challenge of digitalisation and decarbonisation, with particular attention to the reporting of environmental impacts in terms of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Glenk, 2025; Carbon Chain, 2024). The findings of this study aim to advance the conceptualisation of digital accountability and provide an innovative methodological approach for assessing the degree of digital responsibility. In conclusion, this doctoral thesis, through its four interconnected studies, offers a multidimensional perspective on disclosure and accountability practices. It examines the challenges and opportunities arising from evolving normative, technological, and social contexts. The findings from each chapter contribute to filling gaps in the existing literature and provide new insights for academics, policymakers, and professionals, ultimately promoting greater transparency and more robust accountability within modern organisations . To concretise and enrich the research path outlined in this thesis, extensive dissemination and training activities have played a crucial role. These activities not only enabled the sharing of preliminary and final results with the scientific and professional communities but also supported the acquisition of fundamental skills and ensured continuous alignment with developments in both the academic and regulatory contexts.