Purpose: This systematic literature review analyzes and identifies research areas where researchers have already studied the role of intellectual capital (IC) in the healthcare sector. This review also analyzes how they carried out their work to understand future research directions.Design/methodology/approach: The analysis is conducted through a systematic literature review. Therefore, following systematic literature review protocol, it was possible to select 225 papers. An analysis of the content was done to identify the main topics debated and understand what components of IC are the most studied by scholars.Findings: The authors highlight how the components of IC (human capital, structural capital and relational capital) in the healthcare sector have not been discussed with the same frequency and intensity by researchers. The research shows that there are already widely discussed areas, such as structural capital, while other components of IC have remained on the shadow, such as relational capital. Human capital is the most undiscussed component.Research limitations/implications: The manual analysis of the articles can be considered a limitation of this work.Originality/value: This systematic literature review makes several useful contributions. First, it enables others to replicate scientific research, thanks to its clear and transparent process. Second, it identifies the main areas of research and the main research methods. It enables researchers to identify which issues their work should address and suggests possible areas for future research.

In 2013 the European Commission started addressing issues concerning public sector accounting harmonization across EU Member States, embarking on a project to develop European Public Sector Accounting Standards (EPSASs). Although acknowledging the indisputable reference of the existing International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSASs), it highlighted that IPSASs, as they were, could not be suitably applied in the EU context (European Commission, 2013a). IPSASs were considered as not covering specific important matters of public sector accounting, not showing enough stability due to the need of constant convergence with IFRSs, and offering several options that compromised comparability. Comparability of public sector accounts across Member States is one of the main objectives of EPSASs (EUROSTAT, 2016, 2019), clearly established as a qualitative characteristic in the draft EPSAS Conceptual Framework (EUROSTAT, 2018). It is critical for EU economic and fiscal convergence that countries’ accounts allow for substantial comparison and standardized transition to the National Accounts (Jorge et al., 2014). The IPSAS Conceptual Framework (IPSASB, 2014), meanwhile issued, sustains that adopting these standards would improve comparability of General Purpose Financial Reporting (GPFR), in this way strengthening transparency and accountability of public sector finance. Given that, despite the above concerns, EPSASs are to be developed on the basis of IPSASs (European Commission, 2019), the purpose of this paper is to show that IPSASs are not an adequate reference for EPSASs in terms of allowing the desired comparability of countries’ accounts in the EU. It relies on evidence gathered from IPSAS-based financial reports prepared by some Agencies of the United Nations System and from audit reports of the UN Board of Auditors. The research illustrates that IPSASs only allow for de jure comparability of financial reports at a very broad level. Their implementation and interpretation in practice (due to the options permitted and the judgement required) does not allow for de facto comparable GPFR. European standard-setters need to be aware that the comparability EPSASs need to address across EU Member States’ accounts must go beyond the one that is permitted by IPSASs – EPSASs need to stretch IPSASs harmonization to a higher level of standardization.

Purpose: The aim of this work is to identify and analyze the main areas on which researchers have focused in relation to intellectual capital (IC) and its management in the university context. This review will also analyze how these researchers carried out their work to understand future research directions.Design/methodology/approach: The analysis was conducted through a structured literature review (SLR) of 866 research contributions (articles, book chapters and books). An analysis of the content was performed to identify the main topics discussed and to ascertain how these studies were carried out.Findings: This paper highlights how the management of knowledge resources (as IC) has been discussed in the literature, focusing specifically on how universities report the information, which is fundamental for allowing stakeholders to understand the value created by these kinds of organizations.Research limitations/implications: The manual analysis of the results of the SLR can be considered a limitation of this work. Another limitation of the work is represented by the use of only one database.Originality/value: This SLR makes several useful contributions for both practitioners and scholars. First, it suggests strengthening the relationship with the external stakeholders to assure the survival of universities. Second, it enables others to replicate scientific research, thanks to its clear and transparent process. It also allows scholars to identify which issues their work should address, as well as suggesting possible future research areas.

Purpose: In the New Public Governance (NPG) paradigm, citizens play a vital role in the decision-making of public organisations and are fundamental to aligning their expectations with service delivery. Citizen engagement could be realised in the budgeting process by adopting participatory budgeting (PB) even if previous literature on PB does not focus on this tool design issue. Therefore, this study aims to understand which PB institutional design arrangements help enhance citizen participation.Design/methodology/approach: A deductive content analysis and a fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis were carried out on the PB regulations of 100 Italian municipalities.Findings: The results suggest that the PB design can be elaborated in different ways that do not always guarantee the involvement of citizens. Virtuous municipalities engage citizens from the start of the process and in the most relevant discussion and deliberation phases. A simple legislative provision does not guarantee a real introduction of participatory governance.Originality/value: This study theorises citizen participation in PB and examines it through empirical evidence to define relationships between PB design arrangements and citizen engagement.

The topic of sustainable development has become increasingly central to the international community. In 2015, the UN approved the 2030 Agenda, an action plan aimed at pursuing sustainable development. The founding elements of the 2030 Agenda are the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) that refer to different areas of development. The objective of this study is to determine the state of implementation of the SDGs in Italy and to understand to what extent the country will be able to reach European standards in 2030 under current policies. To this end, a quantitative analysis was carried out which, thanks to the use of official statistics and the FORECAST.ETS function, made it possible to identify the value that the indicators will have in 2030. In addition, the dynamic index methodology was applied to measure the degree of implementation of the SDGs between two different historical periods: 2018 and 2030. The analyses carried out shows that Italy needs to take urgent measures to meet its commitment to the 2030 Agenda. The study offers one of the first insights into the implementation of the 2030 Agenda as, in addition to analyzing the country’s performance, it examines the pursuit of the SDGs within the country itself. It is therefore believed that the results may be of interest to governments, experts, and academics.

Purpose: Within the stream of research on public sector accounting standards, heritage asset accounting represents a difficult and challenging issue. This paper intends to join the debate on heritage reporting by carrying out a critical review of the Consultation Paper (CP) “Financial Reporting for Heritage in the Public Sector” issued by the International Public Sector Accounting Standards Board (IPSASB) in order to highlight its strengths and weaknesses and to make recommendations.Design/methodology/approach: To this end, the current study adopts document analysis as a qualitative research method by referring to Italy as a typical and critical case study. Moreover, the authors actively took part in the Italian working group on heritage assets reporting, so they are well-informed people about the Italian point of view as well as the broad discussion underpinning the Italian response.Findings: Evidence demonstrates that, although the proposals included in the CP represent a new step towards an organic regulation of heritage asset reporting, if these preliminary views are confronted with the reality of an emblematic context, as in the Italian case, much room for improvement remains regarding the definition, recognition, measurement and disclosure of such assets.Originality/value: The originality of the paper lies in its contribution to overcoming the current controversial aspects of heritage assets reporting and the issuing of an accounting standard. In doing so, the authors also attempt to answer the call made by Anessi-Pessina et al. (2019) to investigate in detail an individual country experience to better understand the state of the art in national and international accounting standards on heritage assets.