Universities’ Intellectual Capital Report: The Formation Concept, Analytical Capabilities under Stakeholders Management Decisions-Making

The modern trends in the socio-economic life, educational and research spheres lead to the increased attention of universities to the more effective management of available resources, as well as high-quality and relevant disclosure of information in their public reporting to the interested parties. Under the circumstances, the intellectual capital (IC) components become key objects in the management accounting systems, and the IC report may become one of the main engines to achieve the transparent information which can raise the interest of stakeholders. The analysis of this practice clarified the discussion points and helped to develop conceptual guidelines for the preparation of the IC report for Russian universities. There have been used the following methods to solve the problem, such as quantitative-systematic analysis, semantic grouping of results and logical relationships. The developed methodology for analyzing the report on IC universities has a certain practical importance. Such methodology also includes methods of financial and management analysis. The formulated recommendations are intended for a wide range of stakeholders, the leadership of the Russian Ministry of Education and Science and higher education institutions.

intellectual capital, report, higher educational institution, accounting management, analysis framework, management decision, stakeholder

1. Todericiu R., Stanit A. Universities intellectual capital. Revista Academiei Fortelor Terestre. 2016;84(4):348–356.

2. Ramirez Y., Tejada A., Manzaneque M. The value of disclosing intellectual capital in Spanish universities: A new challenge of our days. Journal of Organizational Change Management. 2016;29(2):176–198. DOI: 10.1108/JOCM-02–2015–0025

3. Sangiorgi D., Siboni B. The disclosure of intellectual capital in Italian universities: What has been done and what should be done. Journal of Intellectual Capital. 2017:18(2):354–372. DOI: 10.1108/JIC-09–2016–0088

4. Erlandsson F., Lundberg G. Intellectual capital reporting: An explorative and explanative study of how universities in Sweden report on IC information. 2017. URL: http://www.diva-portal.se/smash/get/diva2:1108202/FULLTEXT01.pdf (accessed on 01.09.2020).

5. Low M., Samkin G., Li Y. Voluntary reporting of intellectual capital: Comparing the quality of disclosures from New Zealand, Australian and United Kingdom universities. Journal of Intellectual Capital. 2015;16(4):779–808. DOI: 10.1108/JIC-03–2015–0022

6. Fazlagic A. Measuring the capital intellectual of a university. In: Proc. of the Conf. on Trends in the Management of Human Resources in Higher Education. URL: https://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/56/16/35322785.pdf (accessed on 01.09.2020).

7. Vakhrushina A. A. Management accounting as a conceptual approach to the formation of the intellectual capital report in the budget organizations. Audit = Auditing. 2019;(2):28–33. (In Russ.).

8. Bulyga R. P. Concept of formation of the public reporting of higher education institutions. Vestnik Finansovogo universiteta = Finance: Theory and Practice. 2015;19(6):156–170. (In Russ.).

9. Busygin D. Yu. Formation of the report on the intellectual capital of the university. Buhgalterskii uchet i analiz = Accounting and Analysis. 2019;272(8):24–29. (In Russ.).

10. Glushchenko A. V., Egorova E. M. Integrated management reporting as the basis for management analysis in high schools. Uchet. Analiz. Audit = Accounting. Analysis. Auditing. 2015;2(4);64–74. (In Russ.).

11. Egorova E. M. Methodological foundations of a balanced system of indicators for the strategic development of universities. Izvestiya Nizhnevolzhskogo agrouniversitetskogo kompleksa: nauka i vysshee professional’noe obrazovanie = Proceedings of the Lower Volga Agrodiversity Complex: Science and Higher Professional Education. 2015;39(3):204–212. (In Russ.).

12. Yendovitskii D. A., Belenov B. O. Modeling the complex analysis of the activities of the university with the use of data public reporting. Ekonomicheskii analiz: teoriya i praktika = Economic Analysis: Theory and Practice. 2015;407(8):2–13. (In Russ.).

13. Knyazyuk N. D., Vakhrushina M. A. The concept of the integrated public reporting of the universities. Mezhdunarodnyi bukhgalterskii uchet = International Accounting. 2019;22(6):604–617. (In Russ.).

14. Tolcheeva A. A., Vakhrushina M. A. The disclosure of intellectual capital in universities: Stakeholder approach. In: Proc. of the Intern. Sci. Conf. “Far East Con” (ISCFEC 2018). Advances in Economics, Business and Management Research. 2019;47:661–666. DOI: 10.2991/iscfec-18.2019.162

15. Sanchez M. P., Castrillo R., Elena S. The university of the XXI century: Intellectual capital as a new answer for management. Workshop on visualising, measuring and managing intangibles and intellectual capital. URL: http://www.univnova.org/documentos/noenred/169.pdf (accessed on 01.09.2020).

16. Veklenko S. V. Criteria of efficiency of management decisions: Theoretical aspect. Vestnik Kaliningradskogo filiala Sankt-peterburgskogo universiteta MVD Rossii = Bulletin of the Kaliningrad Branch of the Saint Petersburg University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia. 2016;46(4):7–8. (In Russ.).

17. Demidova I. A. Management decision: the legal nature of the algorithm adopted, performance criteria. Akademicheskaya mysl’ = Academic Thought. 2020;10(1):12–17. (In Russ.).

18. Kopachev A. A. Evaluation of adoption and implementation of managerial decisions Global’nyi nauchnyi potencial = The Global Scientific Potential. 2018;92(11):103–105. (In Russ.).

19. Bychkova S. M., Badmayeva D. G. Methods for analyzing the financial stability of an enterprise. Izvestiya Sankt-peterburgskogo gosudarstvennogo agrarnogo universiteta = Proceedings of the of Saint Petersburg State Agrarian University. 2016;(42):247–254. (In Russ.).

20. Barilenko V. I. Expanding the tasks and opportunities of complex economic analysis. Audit = Auditing. 2019;(11):7–9. (In Russ.).