Gender accounting in action: institutional work and the introduction of different accounting logics in universities

Gender equality is still far from being achieved and remains a global challenge in the pursuit of social justice (Alawattage et al., 2021; Bebbington and Unerman, 2020; Ghio et al., 2023). Addressing gender equality requires focusing on public organizations as agents of change, with universities holding a strategic position (European Union, EU, 2012a). Through engagement with local communities and institutions, universities can disseminate knowledge, foster transformation and exchange resources, information and practices, making them key actors in advancing gender equality (Galizzi and Siboni, 2016; Grossi et al., 2020; Ntim et al., 2017) and valuable contexts to study how public organizations promote gender equality (Oppi and Galizzi, 2024; Rosa and Clavero, 2022).

In this setting, accounting research can contribute by focusing on the design and implementation of gender-responsive practices (Khalifa and Scarparo, 2021). Recent studies explored the potential of accounting practices to understand and overcome systemic inequalities (Haynes, 2024), challenge financial logics that reinforce inequality (Parker and Guthrie, 2014), and help create responsive public organizations that promote gender equality (Nagano and Hosoda, 2023; Steccolini, 2019).

However, accounting and performance measurement systems rarely integrate gender perspectives (Clavijo and Perray-Redslob, 2024; Parker, 2008), suggesting a need for further research on how accounting logics can support gender equality (Rubin and Bartle, 2005).

In this regard, gender-responsive budgeting (GRB) aims to incorporate a gender perspective in public budgeting (Khalifa and Scarparo, 2021; Steccolini, 2019). In public organizations, GRB supports gender-responsive strategic planning, accounting and performance measurement. Among GRB phases, gender disaggregated analysis of expenditures (GDAE) enhances accounting practices by showing the impact of expenditure decisions on gender equality (Sharp, 2003), contributing to accountability, policy and performance outcomes evaluation by gender (Steccolini, 2019) and equitable resource allocation, aligned with the UN Sustainable Development Goals.

Yet, GRB is not integrated into mainstream public accounting despite its potential to introduce alternative accounting logics and to drive organizational change (Khalifa and Scarparo, 2021; Oppi and Galizzi, 2024). Moreover, its implementation requires collaboration among different actors (Khalifa and Scarparo, 2021; Jung, 2022; O’Hagan and Klatzer, 2018; Polzer et al., 2023). Although previous research explored the roles of different actors in GRB (Martínez Guzmán, 2024b; Polzer and Seiwald, 2021), few studies investigated their interactions across different GRB phases, leaving the theme of accounting innovation from a gender perspective unexplored (Canestrini et al., 2025; Galizzi et al., 2023; Jorge et al., 2023; Jung, 2022).

Additional research is therefore needed to understand how collective actions embed GRB in organizational routines. As noted by Khalifa and Scarparo (2021, p. 11), this can “shed light on how GRB practices can forge connections between the different activities of organizational members”.

This study therefore addresses the following research question: How do actors interact to introduce a gender perspective into existing accounting practices in universities?

To answer this, the study adopts the institutional work framework (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006), which offers a valuable lens for analysing how competing social actors engage in creating, maintaining and disrupting institutions. Institutional theory sees actors not as passive recipients of norms, but as actively engaged in shaping (and be shaped by) institutions through intentional actions, a process known as institutional work (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006; Suddaby, 2010).

Institutional work has often been used in public sector research to explore responses to accounting changes. However, less attention has been given to how institutions support management accounting innovation at the meso-level before it reaches implementation at the micro-level (Jalali Aliabadi et al., 2021).

In higher education, this perspective reveals how some actors resist change to defend the traditional frameworks, while others introduce new logics (Kallio et al., 2021).

However, the use of institutional work in gender equality studies remains limited. A few studies explore how actors maintain and reproduce the status quo through (de) legitimation strategies (Roos et al., 2020), leaving space to use this framework to investigate how new institutions are created. Yet, these previous studies analysed institutional work forms questioning existing tools; conversely, this research focuses on efforts to create new gender accounting practices.

This study contributes by investigating the institutional work of actors at meso- and micro-levels to develop a specific gender accounting tool for GDAE, supporting GRB implementation in Italian public universities. Action research is used as a methodology, allowing researchers to participate in the process and observe institutional work in practice (Dover and Lawrence, 2010). The management accounting literature indicates the importance of empirical interpretive and critical insights into the role of accounting in organizations (Baard and Dumay, 2020; Quarchioni and Chiucchi, 2023). This approach bridges theory and practice, producing insights that extend beyond practical to theoretical relevance (Jönsson and Lukka, 2006; Malmi and Granlund, 2009; Suomala et al., 2014).

This study advances gender accounting literature by focusing on GRB as an accounting practice and exploring collaboration among organizational actors in introducing gender perspectives in existing accounting practices to advance gender equality (Hopper, 2019; Khalifa and Scarparo, 2021).

It also responds to calls for research on accounting’s role in addressing social challenges (Alawattage et al., 2021; Bebbington and Unerman, 2020; Ghio et al., 2023), exploring how accounting innovation develops, and which challenges actors face at the meso- and micro-levels.

The following sections present the literature review and theoretical framework, research setting, action research methodology, results, discussion and conclusion.

Early accounting research on gender focused mainly on women’s presence and their empowerment in the accounting profession (e.g. Ciancanelli et al., 1990; Hopwood, 1987; Lehman, 1992). Later, studies discussed the individual, organizational and structural barriers that women face in their careers across different workplaces and cultures (e.g. Broadbent and Kirkham, 2008; Dambrin and Lambert, 2012; Gallhofer et al., 2011; Hayes and Jacobs, 2017; Khalifa, 2013; Komori, 2008; Vidwans and Whiting, 2022).

Research also looked at how management and accounting practices can enhance gender equality within organizations, although such measures organizations are not always effective. For example, Clavijo and Perray-Redslob (2024) found that internal accounting tools alone are not sufficient to promote female leadership, as existing social structures perpetuate existing inequalities. Similarly, in a non-Western context, Ogharanduku et al. (2021) showed that when traditional cultural dynamics remain unchallenged, women’s leadership has limited long-term impact. In contrast, Nagano and Hosoda (2023) demonstrated that in Japan gender equality can improve when formal and cultural management control systems provide supportive mechanisms.

However, the role of organizations in addressing gender inequality remains underexplored (Ben-Amar et al., 2021; Clavijo and Perray-Redslob, 2024; Galizzi and Siboni, 2016), as does the role of accounting in incorporating social and moral issues and supporting gender equality (Carnegie et al., 2024; Hopper, 2019; Khalifa and Scarparo, 2021). Accounting is not gender-neutral (Broadbent, 1998; Haynes, 2017); it is gendered, in how it reflects the social divisions of roles, reinforces male power and domination through the preference for “hard” information (Broadbent, 1998, p. 275) and unbiased and rational economic-financial measures. As such, accounting is gendering, functioning as a “political construct implicated in inequality” (Haynes, 2017, p. 113), reinforcing male dominance through its processes and practices (Carmona and Ezzamel, 2016; Clavijo and Perray-Redslob, 2024; Haynes, 2017, 2024). Carmona and Ezzamel (2016) introduced the concept of the “accounting gaze”, which highlights how accounting practices technical focus (what it measures) and their intentions (what they aim to reveal), whether deliberately or accidentally, shape gender roles and workplace identities. Therefore, accounting may either reinforce or question existing gender dynamics.

Regarding calculative practices in the public sector, various efforts have emerged to transform accounting practices into tools to achieve gender-related goals (Khalifa and Scarparo, 2021; Marx, 2019). Marx (2019), in the Austrian context, suggested that each accounting practice offers a particular form of visibility, which influences action possibilities. She warned against assuming neutrality in numbers, noting how statistics and performance indicators are often used to address gender equality. As metrics become more central in decision-making, she argued that GRB becomes crucial to understand the gender impact (intended or unintended) of accounting practices.

GRB seeks to raise awareness about the gender impact of public policies, strategies and decision-making processes (Broadbent, 1998). It incorporates gender perspectives in all budgeting phases: preparation, approval, execution, reporting and evaluation (Steccolini, 2019). Since the 1980s, GRB has gained relevance in the public sector, including in universities (O’Hagan and Klatzer, 2018; Sharp, 2003). GRB involves two main phases: (1) analysis of the context from a gender perspective and (2) gender budgeting. The former analyses the organization’s policies, activities and budgets from a gender perspective, aiming to raise awareness and promote accountability. Specifically, GDAE assesses how expenditures (or revenues) affect women and men differently (Sharp, 2003). Budlender et al. (1998) proposed three categories for this assessment: (1) gender-based expenditures (to address gender (in) equality), (2) expenditures promoting equal opportunities in the workplace (e.g. initiatives to sustain work–life balance and career advancement) and (3) mainstream expenditures (without a specific gender focus). The latter focuses on building budgets where gender is a cross-cutting criterion for resource allocation.

Khalifa and Scarparo (2021) investigated the transformative potential of GRB and found that the gender perspective is often only partially integrated into public budgeting processes, with no apparent changes in formats and structures. They also noted the lack of accounting perspectives in GRB discussions, both in social sciences and in feminist accounting literature.

Recent studies identified critical factors for successful GRB implementation. Political will is key in the early phases, as leaders’ awareness and support define the legislative and strategic space for GRB (Galizzi et al., 2023; Jorge et al., 2023; Steccolini, 2019). In addition, civil servants’ involvement and expertise help to embed GRB in organizational processes (Khalifa and Scarparo, 2021; Martínez Guzmán, 2024b). Effective GRB integration into policy planning, budgeting and performance monitoring also depends on data availability and collaboration with civil society, which can enhance accountability (Khalifa and Scarparo, 2021; Marx, 2019). Despite the recognized importance of these actors, few studies have explored the combined role. For instance, Polzer and Seiwald (2021) showed that Austria’s GRB experience depends on sustained leadership and civil society advocacy. Jorge et al. (2023) confirmed the need for high-level political leadership to ensure institutionalization of GRB.

While most literature focuses on national-level dynamics, recent studies (Canestrini et al., 2025; Galizzi et al., 2023; Jung, 2022) address multi-actor engagement within organizations. Canestrini et al. (2025) analysed joint GRB implementation in three healthcare organizations, highlighting that cooperation among different institutional actors was essential. Although GRB research is increasing, the link between this process and gender equality outcomes, and especially its interaction with accounting practices requires deeper analysis.

Institutions are understood as socially accepted practices (Retief Venter and De Villiers, 2013), internalized beliefs (Burns and Scapens, 2000) or rationalized myths (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006). Institutions exert isomorphic pressures at individual, organizational, field and societal levels (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983).

Institutional theory challenges the idea that social actors, such as individuals and organizations, decide solely to maximize efficiency; instead, it argues that they conform to institutions to gain legitimacy and survive (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983).

Yet, actors are not merely passive: they can shape institutions through intentional action, a dynamic captured by the concept of institutional work (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006). This approach offers a nuanced comprehension of how institutional stability and change coexist, balancing structural continuity and individual agency in driving change (Burns and Scapens, 2000).

Lawrence and Suddaby’s (2006) institutional work framework categorizes purposive actions aimed at creating, maintaining or disrupting institutions and provides a detailed account of the forms of agency involved in institutional change (Chiwamit et al., 2014).

Creating institutions means establishing new institutional structures. Maintaining institutions refers to actions that preserve, restore or reinforce the frameworks that support institutional norms (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006). Disrupting institutions involves challenging or dismantling existing ones, often by actors who want to weaken dominant arrangements. These categories are not always separate or exclusive: actors can create new institutions while also challenging existing ones or resisting others’ efforts (Lawrence et al., 2009; Farooq and de Villiers, 2019a). Therefore, institutional strategies often combine creation, maintenance and disruption (Canning and O’Dwyer, 2016). Several scholars (Farooq and de Villiers, 2019a, b; Jalali Aliabadi et al., 2021) emphasized that institutionalization usually results from the interplay among these different forms of institutional work and some forms may even enable or support others (Chiwamit et al., 2014; Farooq and de Villiers, 2019a).

In this study, the main forms of institutional work are for creating institutions: advocacy, constructing identities, changing normative associations, constructing normative networks, mimicry, theorizing and educating; for maintaining institutions: embedding and routinizing; and for disrupting institutions: undermining assumptions and beliefs. Definitions are summarized in Table 1 and described in detail below.

Focusing on creating institutions, advocacy involves mobilizing actors to promote a new practice through persuasion (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006). It builds legitimacy using strategies such as lobbying, campaigns, legal actions, alliances, stakeholder engagement (Battilana et al., 2009; Hwang and Powell, 2005) and leadership appointment (Sharma et al., 2014). Since advocacy depends on both tangible (e.g. financial) and intangible (e.g. social capital) resources, stronger actors are often more successful (Seo and Creed, 2002; Chiwamit et al., 2014).

Constructing identities involve how actors define their roles within the institutional field (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006). For example, Jalali Aliabadi et al. (2021) examined how Iranian budget reforms shaped institutional identities by assigning new responsibilities for planning and oversight.

Changing normative associations means redefining the link between practices and their cultural or moral meaning (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006). Townley (1997) studied how UK universities responded to state reforms by integrating private-sector logic but maintained academic autonomy by designing their own performance evaluation systems aligned with academic traditions.

Constructing normative networks involves creating networks that legitimize practices and define relevant actors in terms of compliance, monitoring and evaluation (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006). Hayne and Free (2014) described how implementation committee members built relationships to help diffuse a new enterprise risk management framework, opening it to use by many field actors.

Mimicry emphasizes similarities between new and established practices (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006), making new practices easier to accept. For instance, Hayne and Free (2014) underlined how actors used language, analogies, metaphors and rhetoric to support institutional change. Additionally, Etzion and Ferraro (2010) described how the GRI promoted sustainability reporting by comparing it to financial reporting, helping actors accept the new standard.

Theorizing refers to the process of defining abstract categories linking them through causal and sequential reasoning (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006). A key aspect is naming new concepts and practices, so they can be integrated into the cognitive framework of a field (Orsato et al., 2002). Kitchener’s (2002) also highlighted the narrative side of theorizing, where actors link institutional elements through causal relationships to create shared understanding and legitimacy.

Educating involves providing actors with the knowledge and skills to support a new practice or institution (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006). Sharma et al. (2014) described how the management of a newly privatized telecom company organized training programs to help employees shift from old technical routines to accounting-oriented activities, encouraging them to rethink their existing professional culture.

In the domain of maintaining institutions, embedding and routinizing refer to integrating institutional norms into daily practices (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006). When these routines become naturalized, they form the expected way of functioning. Still, not all behaviours are institutionalized to the same extent: strong institutions need broad support from relevant actors, while weak ones are more vulnerable to change (Barley and Tolbert, 1997). For example, Mauro et al. (2019) showed that changing budgeting practices in an organization required altering deeply rooted routines, a transformation that demands strong leadership and does not always guarantee success.

Regarding disrupting institutions, the sole form of institutional work adopted in this research is undermining assumptions and beliefs (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006). This kind of work opens space for innovation and new institutional arrangements (Farooq and de Villiers, 2019b). However, change is often difficult due to the high costs of innovation and the risks related to leaving established practices, technologies and norms (Scott, 2001). Sharma et al. (2014) showed how appointed accountants acted as change agents by introducing accounting practices, slowly replacing engineering-based routines, which eventually became normalized within the organization.

Limited research, however, applied the institutional work framework to gender equality (Clavero and Galligan, 2020). For example, Styhre (2014) analysed how the Church of Sweden institutionalized female ministers as legitimate professionals, showing that gendered expectations persisted, with women still facing pressures not applied to men. This case illustrates how institutional work is a continuous and collective effort to reshape norms. Conversely, Maguire and Hardy (2009) and Roos et al. (2020) adopted the concept of “defensive institutional work”, where insiders act to maintain power imbalances between groups. Roos et al. (2020) analysed gender policy documents from five Flemish universities and found that powerful actors often used vague and non-committal strategies to delay change. This lack of clarity about what actions were needed and when helps explain why progress towards gender equality remains slow.

Since the 1970s, the EU prioritized gender equality by integrating it into policies and activities, including budgeting. This objective involves member states and public sector organizations, including universities, which are considered key actors in driving cultural change on gender equality, promoting equal participation, addressing the “leaky pipeline” and avoiding the loss of women’s talents and skills (EU, 2012a, 2012b).

In Italy, various regulations have been introduced to promote gender equality. One of those requires public organizations to implement GRB and report on it to assess their institutional performance (Italian Parliament, 2009). However, a standardized GRB framework across public organizations is still lacking.

Consequently, Italian universities developed heterogeneous approaches. To support these efforts, the Ministry of Education, University and Research published recommendations to strategize gender equality (MIUR, 2018), and the National Agency for the Evaluation of Universities and Research Institutes published guidelines to include gender-responsive logic in performance and budget cycles (ANVUR, 2019). Some experiences with GDAE also emerged (e.g. Ministry of Economics and Finance–MEF, 2021).

The Conference of Italian University Rectors (hereafter Conference), a private association founded in 1963, and including 85 state and non-state universities, has played a strategic role in promoting GRB within universities. As a coordination body and advisor to the Ministry, the Conference published guidelines for implementing GRB in universities (CRUI, 2019). These encourage the periodic publication of GRB reports structured in three sections: (1) a gender-sensitive context analysis, (2) an analysis of gender equality in local practices and performance measurements and (3) GDAE. The first section provides tables and graphs to highlight the vertical and horizontal segregation among students, academics, technical and administrative staff and governance. The second section evaluates gender-related actions and outcomes using performance indicators. The third section (GDAE) requires reclassifying expenditures from a gender perspective, to understand how resource allocation affects different genders. It requires reclassifying expenditure groups in the forecast budget and final balance sheet by labelling them based on Budlender et al.’s (1998) model, adapted for Italy. It considers the GDAE model proposed by the MEF (2021), which identifies three expenditure categories: (1) gender-neutral, with no effect on gender; (2) gender-sensitive, with indirect impact on gender equality (e.g. individual services offered by the public sector); and (3) expenditures aimed at promoting gender equality. This model links budgeting with gender equality goals and requires universities to adjust accounting systems accordingly.

Established in 1967 by the Ministry of Public Education and four universities, the Inter-university Consortium for Automatic Calculation (hereafter Consortium) is a non-profit organization that supports research and offers digital services to 113 public institutions, including 69 universities. It serves 71% of the 97 Italian universities (67 statal universities, 19 non-statal ones and 11 telematic).

The Consortium provides platforms for managing research funding, research quality evaluations, budgets and accounting.

Amongst these, it offers an integrated IT system that helps define institutional objectives, and monitor performance across areas like planning, accounting, research, project management, teaching, human resources and data management.

A key component is an accounting platform which manages general and analytical accounting, aligns with regulatory requirements and supports customized university processes.

This platform integrates other systems like document management, procurement, salary management, tax management and forecast budget management. It is also an “open” system interacting with external systems such as invoicing systems and library and inventory management.

Action research was conducted to address the research objective. This approach is characterized by researchers being actively involved in organizations to solve real-world problems by deploying theory for designing and implementing solutions through interventions and analysing the results from both theoretical and practice perspectives (Dumay and Baard, 2017, p. 267).

This method focuses on driving organizational change and producing practical, reliable knowledge. It is a collaborative process carried out with participants (Coghlan, 2011), empowering practitioners inside organizations (Baard and Dumay, 2020).

Unlike traditional approaches that require researcher neutrality, action research encourages continuous collaboration between researchers and practitioners to address specific problems (Dumay, 2010), to find specific, often generalizable, solutions (Jönsson and Lukka, 2006). It seeks to advance both knowledge and practical social action in daily life (Coghlan, 2011; Jönsson and Lukka, 2006).

Action research has been criticized for adopting positivistic methods or resembling consultancy (Gummesson, 1988). However, it is grounded in “theories of practice” (Llewelyn, 2003), rooted in Lewin’s (1946) original theorization of action research as a means to address urgent social issues through theoretical engagement (Malmi and Granlund, 2009).

In accounting, interest in action research grew in the 1990s (e.g. Ferreira and Merchant, 1992), when researchers started studying “accounting in action” (Lukka, 1998, p. 335), exploring how accounting is used and how its use could be improved (Jönsson, 1996), Since accounting (and management accounting) “is an applied discipline owing its existence to practice” (Baard and Dumay, 2020, p. 1980), this approach has been useful for implementing new accounting instruments in specific contexts (e.g. Korhonen et al., 2021) and for addressing particular managerial concerns (Quarchioni and Chiucchi, 2023). These tools are developed collaboratively between researchers and practitioners, who develop viable accounting solutions (Suomala et al., 2014) and exchange knowledge in a process of collective learning (Baard and Dumay, 2020). Dialogue with practitioners through workshops and face-to-face meetings is useful (Apostol et al., 2021; Quarchioni and Chiucchi, 2023) as it can mitigate development tensions (Chiucchi, 2013; Suomala et al., 2014).

This action research is framed following Susman and Evered’s (1978), five-phase cycle: diagnosis, action planning, action taking, action evaluation and learning. These phases have been widely adopted in accounting research (e.g. Apostol et al., 2021; Curtis, 2017). Additionally, Lawrence and Suddaby’s (2006) institutional work framework was applied to describe each step of the project. Figure 1 illustrates the main steps of the action research with reference to this framework.

Diagnosis: The first step involved problem recognition and research question formulation. In mid-2016, 21 academics with expertise in gender issues (including one researcher, R3), who were connected through informal networks due to their involvement in various EU-funded projects at different universities, wrote a letter to the Conference President requesting the establishment of a working table on gender equality, specifically to discuss GRB as a process gaining increasing interest in universities. Recognizing the strategic relevance to the topic, the Conference established the Board of Delegates on Gender Issues (hereafter, the Board) in late 2017, composed of delegates on gender issues from all member universities and appointed a Rector as Board Coordinator. Two researchers (R2 and R3) joined through university mandates.

In July 2018, a smaller Group on GRB (hereafter, the Group) was created to draft specific guidelines on the topic. The Group included ten scholars from various universities with expertise in GRB. R3 was appointed as Group coordinator, while R1 joined as a representative of one of the first universities in Italy implementing GRB. In 2019, the guidelines were published (CRUI, 2019).

The problem emerged in early April 2021, when the Group presented the results of a survey on guideline adoption to the Board. A limited capacity of universities to perform GDAE emerged and GRB reports showed heterogeneous attempts. Also R3’s university (U1) had difficulties due to the lack of specific tools. The Board agreed on the need for an accounting instrument to support GDAE, give visibility to gender equality and enhance decision-making processes; the Board identified expertise within the Group to develop such a tool. This phase refers to creating institutions (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006), aiming to promote in the Conference a shift in the normative associations of existing accounting practices and their cultural underpinnings, to enhance gender equality.

Action planning: In the second phase, from mid-April 2021, the Group conducted two focus groups to analyse accounting structures and systems used by Italian universities, discussing how to integrate GDAE into these systems. Since most systems were managed by the Consortium, the Group proposed involving the Consortium and the Board agreed. A Working team was appointed to design the action plan and manage the process. From the Group’s diverse members, three were selected: R3 (Group Coordinator), a professor of physics; a retired professor of microeconomics with strong ties to the Consortium; and R1, an expert in management accounting.

In May 2021, the action research plan was presented to the Board. The aim was to design a Gender Accounting Tool for GDAE (hereafter Tool) within the Consortium’s systems. R2 collaborated with R1 to analyse the results of the process, drawing on her expertise in GRB. This phase also focuses on creating institutions (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006), with a focus on engaging key meso-level stakeholders, like the Consortium, in a stable relationship with the Conference.

Action taking: The third phase focused on implementing the action plan. In August 2021, the working team began discussions with the Consortium in a first focus group, under the Board’s mandate, which coordinated institutional relationships and reviewed intermediate results in collegial meetings.

Between September 2021 and April 2022, seven focus groups took place. The first two included the Consortium’s Head of the University Unit and four academics experts appointed by the Board to ensure coherence with the mandate and to offer external inputs on universities’ information systems. The remaining five focus groups included the Working team and two Consortium employees pertaining to the University Unit and responsible for the accounting platform.

The Working team engaged in a dialogue with practitioners (Apostol et al., 2021), offered them a different perspective, introducing gender accounting concepts unfamiliar to other interlocutors (Quarchioni and Chiucchi, 2023), and discussed how to integrate the gender perspective into existing accounting systems, especially in expenditures. R1 played a key role in bringing unity to the gender accounting concept through collaboration with R2, using a bottom-up approach to adapt GDAE within the Consortium’s platforms. This led to a shared proposal for a GDAE framework based on reclassifying universities’ charts of accounts. U1’s chart of accounts was used as a model, with the support from the university leadership.

This phase also reflects creating institutions at the meso-level (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006), including the theoretical development of the tool, redefining accounting cultural norms, identifying levers for adoption and identifying actors for future implementation (especially accountants).

Action evaluation: The fourth step involved evaluating the consequences of the actions. At the beginning of May 2022, the results were presented to the Board. R2 contributed strategic insights and ensured an external perspective concerning the alignment of the Tool with the Board’s mandate.

From June to September 2022, a Tool pilot was implemented at U1. R3 and the Head of Accounting worked with the Consortium to clarify objectives and reduce implementation tensions (Chiucchi, 2013; Suomala et al., 2014). R1 and R2 interviewed the Head of Accounting to assess the trial results.

Between September and October 2022, two focus groups were held with the Consortium to revise the Tool based on feedback. The final version was presented to the Board in early October 2022. This phase involves creating, maintaining and disrupting institutions (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006). The trial engaged actors in creating new institutions (the Tool), aligning U1 with GDAE objectives, toward the creation of new identities for key actors and the revision of cultural associations connected with their daily practices. This phase also aimed at maintaining institutions, once implemented, while disrupting extant ones undermining existing assumptions, reducing implementation risks.

Learning: Reflections on changes and lessons learned were examined. At the end of October 2022, the Conference and the Consortium hosted a national online event to present the Tool to all Italian universities. The 263 attendees included Deputy Rectors for Equal Opportunities, academics involved in GRB processes, General Directors and accountants. R3 opened the event, R1 and the two Consortium employees explained the Tool model and implementation procedures, including its free adoption starting January 2023. An interactive Q&A followed to address questions and concerns (Apostol et al., 2021; Quarchioni and Chiucchi, 2023). This final step aimed at creating institutions (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006) especially among universities not previously involved in the process. It aims at challenging the cultural norms associated with accounting and supporting broader GDAE implementation, both through specific instruments and through a relevant network.

All research activities were coordinated by the researchers, with support from the Conference and the Consortium. Participants were selected for their relevance at the meso- and micro-levels, and participated in focus groups and interviews, contributing to data discussion at different stages of the research process. Collegial discussions in Board meetings helped frame the research context and identify factors influencing GDAE and the Tool development. Focus groups and interviews with the Consortium and U1’s employees aimed at engaging key actors in discussion and to deepen their perspectives. The research included four Board meetings (490 minutes), 15 focus groups (1,570 minutes), two interviews (75 minutes) and one final online event (150 minutes). All activities were recorded and transcribed to allow a better comprehension of phenomena. Researchers’ notes and immediate reflections were also incorporated. The documentation helped formalize processes and strengthen institutional relationships. Table 2 presents the data retrieved during the action research process.

This section presents the main findings into four subsections, reflecting the action research process. It focuses on the forms of institutional work carried out by researchers, the Conference, the Consortium and U1 actors, and presented in Table 1, aimed at promoting institutional change through the development and implementation of the Tool.

In September 2019, the Group published the aforementioned guidelines and started monitoring their adoption. In March 2021, they surveyed all universities affiliated with the Conference to evaluate GRB implementation. The questionnaire investigated aspects such as data collection, information reported and difficulties encountered during the process. Results showed that 39 universities had started GRB and 37 (more than one-third of Conference members) followed the guidelines.

However, in most cases, efforts were limited to gender-sensitive context analysis and assessment of local gender equality practices, without addressing GDAE. This revealed a missing financial perspective in implementation.

Several barriers emerged. Respondents indicated “a lack of dedicated resources with specific expertise”, “scarce multidisciplinary of the local group on GRB”, “a lack of data”, “restrictions in the Consortium”s information systems”, “need for specific guidelines”. A major issue concerned the difficulty of comparing GRB reports across universities, as reported:

As highlighted in recent literature (Canestrini et al., 2025; Martínez Guzmán, 2024a; Polzer et al., 2023; Rubin and Bartle, 2023), effective GRB requires gender-sensitive data and technical capacity of civil servants to conduct the analysis. It also requires funding, which is more easily secured when enablers such as existing tools and strong managerial commitment are present (Martínez Guzmán, 2024a). In April 2021, R1 and R3 presented the survey results to the Board. Among 37 universities publishing GRB reports, only six performed expenditure analysis, and just two (including U1) applied GDAE according to the guidelines. The Board Coordinator underlined the importance of GDAE in promoting gender equality and institutional awareness, stressing the need for collective support in its implementation:

The discussion within the Board highlighted the importance of changing the normative associations between accounting practices in universities and their underlying cultural foundations (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006), thereby underscoring the need for broader dissemination of this shift across universities to raise awareness on gender equality issues.

Following its mandate, the Group began discussing the characteristics of universities’ accounting systems.

R3, the Group coordinator, opened the discussion:

These preliminary phases emphasized the need for suitable tools and enabling conditions to support GDAE implementation. As Polzer and Seiwald (2021) argue, training not only prepares civil servants for new responsibilities but also raises their awareness of gender inequalities, offering practical solutions. When training is connected to a deeper understanding of the goals, it fosters organizational routines that support GRB (Khalifa and Scarparo, 2021; Steccolini, 2019). Galizzi et al. (2023) suggest that leveraging familiar tools can help individuals become accustomed to new terminology, data and outcome presentations.

The Group agreed on the importance of supporting universities through targeted initiatives, particularly educational programs (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006), which survey responses identified as a key enabler for GDAE adoption.

One member emphasized the crucial role of the Consortium:

The Group thus identified the need to integrate GDAE into existing accounting systems, using automation to reduce complexity and assist accountants. Aligning GDAE with current tools and practices was viewed as an effective strategy to support automation and promote adoption. This led to a focus on mimicry strategies (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006) to address potential resistance and facilitate institutionalization.

Further, R3 shared U1’s experience, where attempts to perform GDAE according to the guidelines met challenges. U1’s Head of Accounting had contacted the Consortium to integrate the GDAE into their platforms by enabling the reclassification of each item from a gender perspective; however, these exchanges revealed that the request was unfeasible for a single institution. According to the Consortium contact centre: “Implementing the modifications to the platform is a very demanding task. It amounts to €10,000 + VAT”. They added: “Should the GRB become mandatory for all universities, it would clearly represent an accounting evolution requirement …”.

As one Group member commented: “Seems pretty clear they’re just saying “no”, in a polite way …”.

Recognizing the Consortium’s centrality, the Group asked the Board Coordinator to maintain a relationship with the Consortium, through specific advocacy activities (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006) aimed at securing institutional support from the Conference. A formal letter was drafted to outline the challenges and request direct Board involvement. The letter concluded:

The Working team then drafted the action research plan in two main steps (Box 1): (1) reclassifying universities’ charts of accounts from a gender perspective, using the GDAE framework and (2) integrating this into the Consortium’s existing information systems, adding a specific labelling to track items from a gender perspective.

The GDAE framework, inspired by Budlender et al. (1998) and Italian practices (e.g. MEF, 2021), defined three types of expenditures: (1) expenditures that cannot be quantified in a gender perspective, with no relationships with gender issues (labelled ‘N” for “neutral”); (2) gender-sensitive expenditures (labelled “S” for “sensitive”); (3) expenditures directed at promoting gender equality, thus linked with specific actions in this sense (labelled “P” for “parity”).

This theorizing form of institutional work introduced new categories and causal reasoning (Kitchener, 2002) into university accounting. These concepts were named to “become a part of the cognitive map of the field” (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006, p. 226).

The action research plan was discussed in a Board meeting at the end of May 2021. The Board Coordinator highlighted the Consortium’s collaboration, the role of the Group and the ultimate goal of facilitating GDAE:

This initiative reflected inter-organizational collaboration to build a normative network promoting the diffusion of the GDAE framework (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006). This effort was strengthened by the formation of a dedicated group of key actors from the Board (i.e. political actors and experts) who initially engaged with the Consortium to ensure cognitive alignment among all parties. Three representatives of the Consortium (the Head of the University Unit and two employees in this unit) were involved to ensure the technical feasibility of the request. A University Rector representing the Board and three professors with experience in accounting and information systems were also involved in the two meetings. The former recalls the Board’s mandate.

Consistent with Lawrence and Suddaby (2006), the mandate anticipated that developing the framework would support changing normative associations within universities’ accounting systems, while facilitating its adoption and reliability, particularly through its integration in existing technologies, in line with mimicry form of institutional work.

The team presented the GDAE framework, discussing its implementation in the Consortium’s integrated IT system, either on the forecast budget (to measure universities’ commitment to expenditures), on the final budget (the accounting platform to analyse actual expenditures) or both (to perform expenditure assessment). Given the reach of the accounting platform, the group agreed to concentrate on the final accounts. A Consortium employee cited ANVUR (2019) to support this direction:

The Working team and the Consortium developed the Tool final proposal (Box 2), which was approved by the Board in November 2021.

The Working team then reclassified a single chart of accounts based on the framework. It focused on U1, being U1 a mega-university with high levels of complexity; therefore, its chart of accounts could align with both large and small universities’ specificities. Each of the 437 cost items of analytical accounting was reclassified: 251 cost items were labelled N, 124 cost items were S and 62 cost items showed ambiguity and were marked NP or SP (12 NP and 50 SP). An example of the chart of accounts structure and its reclassification is presented in Table 3.

This process further supported the theorization process and served as an educational opportunity for Consortium staff engaged in developing the Tool (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006).

Between December 2021 and March 2022, the Consortium developed the first version of the Tool. The tool added a new “Gender impact” field in each expenditure registration to label it according to the gender perspective. To support this process, labels were automatically assigned based on U1’s reclassification of its chart of accounts. The Tool requires accountants to label items only when ambiguities exist, specifically for the 62 cost items initially marked as NP or SP. Table 4 shows an entry from U1’s systems in which the “Gender impact” labelling is ambiguous and requires accountants’ intervention.

The Working team reviewed the proposal’s consistency with the Consortium. The Tool aims to support accountants’ roles and encourage their intervention in ambiguous cases to enhance their expertise and promote the gender perspective on which the GDAE is based. Consequently, R1 and R3 proposed making label selection mandatory for ambiguous cost items.

As one of Consortium employee explained:

Thus, ambiguity was allowed in cases in which accountants missed the proper information to choose.

The Tool aimed to construct different identities by introducing new rules into the daily activities of operators, encouraging them to reflect on the implications of expenditures and thereby redefining how they engage with their work environment and with other actors, such as academics (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006). To support this process, the innovation reinforced mimicry by interacting with existing practices, for example, through pre-filled labels and by reducing the workload required to carry out the activity.

At the same time, the Tool was flexible. Each university would reclassify its chart of accounts (using U1’s model as guidance) so the tool could reflect local specificities. A local working group (typically the local group on GRB) would handle this, collaborating with the Consortium for integration.

Defining specific responsibilities within universities aimed to both educate university communities and adapt their charts of accounts to align the Tool with institutional contexts. Sharing U1’s chart of accounts further supported education for managers and officials involved in GDAE, facilitating the dissemination of the knowledge necessary to implement the process. This educating form of institutional work was replicated at various stages to ensure broader diffusion of GDAE objectives (Farooq and de Villiers, 2019a).

In April 2022, the Working team presented the Tool to the Board, followed by a trial at U1. The university’s top management fully supported the initiative and the Deputy Rector for Equal Opportunities highlighted its relevance:

As a member of U1 and an active participant in GRB processes, R3 has built long-term political commitment to gender issues, enabling her to advocate effectively, engage key stakeholders and secure broader organizational support for the trial (Battilana et al., 2009; Hwang and Powell, 2005).

Between May and July 2022, the trial took place. Before implementation, U1’s Head of Accounting, already involved in reclassifying the chart of accounts, participated in focus groups with R3 and the Consortium to explore the Tool’s technical features. These meetings clarified how the Tool would work in practice and how operators’ activities and their relationships within the work environment would change, contributing to the construction of their new identities (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006). Education was identified as a crucial element for the Tool’s success, as it was pivotal to accountants’ transition to new roles and for fully understanding and aligning with the GDAE objectives. To encourage accountants’ engagement, it was deemed useful to disseminate the Tool aims through formal communication from U1’s Rector, consistent with Jalali Aliabadi et al. (2021). The Head of Accounting drafted a short note to be submitted by U1’s Rector to the 70 coordinators of administrative offices, requesting them to share the information with their teams.

The note opened by acknowledging that:

The note introduced the Tool’s features and clarified the role of accountants, particularly in resolving ambiguous labels, stating: “In this phase, the information provided by academics will be crucial in helping the operator gather enough elements to resolve ambiguities and select the appropriate label”.

The Accounting Office was also assigned as a reference point for any questions. Alongside education, this served as a means to embed and routinize the Tool into accountants’ daily activities and organizational practices (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006), reducing accountants’ perceived risks associated with implementing an innovation that challenges their taken-for-granted practices (Scott, 2001). It also tried to undermine existing institutional assumptions, consistent with the undermining assumptions and beliefs form of institutional work (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006). At the end of the trial, R1 and R2 interviewed the Head of Accounting. She highlighted the importance of the reclassified chart of accounts; hence, the availability of pre-filled labelling derived from such reclassification is considered a great advantage for accountants in registration. This confirmed the advantages of mimicry when the Tool is integrated in existing technologies (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006) and highlighted the role of the reclassified chart of accounts in easing accountants’ work. However, the trial also revealed critical issues, especially around education and information sharing.

This emphasized the need for broader involvement. The construction of new identities and the routinization of activities within daily practices should include not only accountants, who primarily handle registrations, but also academics, who generate the expenditures. Further challenges arose from U1’s choice to spread the note on the Tool only to office coordinators, making them responsible for informing their teams. This approach led to uneven dissemination, as implementation varied according to each coordinator’s sensitivity to the topic, ultimately limiting the Tool’s effectiveness and its potential contribution to decision-making processes:

Thus, the process of identity construction and the change in normative associations relied heavily on individual sensitivity of coordinators, who can influence accountants’ approach to the Tool, despite political commitment and prior education on the topic, although this education was limited to the formal note issued before its implementation.

The Head of Accounting recommended broader involvement from the Conference through more structured training initiatives. During the trial, her office acted as a contact point, but there was little initiative from other accountants, reflecting a difficulty in revising their interactions with their field and in aligning their work practices with the underlying cultural foundations. She also emphasized the need to rethink the information-sharing processes within U1:

To assess the results, the Consortium analysed the Tool usage. As expected, many labels remained unresolved due to limited available information. Figure 2 compares the pre-filled labels (left) with those resolved by accountants (right).

Results showed that 42% of NP expenditures were classified as N, while 58% remained ambiguous. For SP, only 12% were labelled S and 4% P, with 84% left unresolved. This confirmed that the lack of structured information-sharing placed too much responsibility on accountants. Furthermore, low awareness of gender issues among academics limited their collaboration, reducing the possibility of solving ambiguities. The Head of Accounting acknowledged the Tool’s potential, but also its limits:

To resolve ambiguous labels, the local group on GRB was assigned a key role. At U1, this group integrated the results, verified the registrations, discussed potential doubts and correct labelling to avoid ambiguities. R3 and an accountant from the Accounting Office participated in the process and analysed all NP and SP expenditures manually. Specifically, 100% of NP expenditures were solved; 99.72% resulted in N and 0.28% were tracked to P. Of the 98.64% of SP expenditures solved, 99.95% was reconducted to S, and 0.05% to P. Table 5 presents the results of the process.

Most P expenditures involved PhD scholarships in gender studies (48.21%), gender-related projects (33.53%), inclusion-related services, such as a podcast about opportunities for women in the local area (7.44%), remuneration for personnel in specific positions (4.69%) and awards for theses on gender topics (4.61%).

This group supports the achievement of the GDAE by using its expertise to resolve ambiguities in discussions with the Head of Accounting, while also contributing to the dissemination of education on the topic, all aimed at the successful implementation of the Tool.

The results were discussed in three focus groups held between the Working team and the Consortium between September and October 2022. Based on trial feedback, a decision was made to allow accountants to retain ambiguous labels in case of missing information, preventing workflow blocks and ensuring flexibility in the Tool’s use.

The final version of the Tool was presented to the Board by the Working team in early October 2022. To promote its use, the Board decided to make the tool freely available (Martínez Guzmán, 2024a). The Consortium invited all universities to the official launch event, held at the end of October 2022. For many institutions, this marked their first introduction to the Tool. The Consortium’s communication and the Conference’s coordination of the event supported the development of normative networks (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006) that universities could join, thereby building relationships (Hayne and Free, 2014) that facilitate the integration of existing institutional structures with the new institution of the GDAE.

During the event, R3, as the coordinator of the Group on GRB, presented the project’s general objectives and steps, R1 explained the GDAE framework and provided examples to train participants to solve ambiguous labelling. Employees from the Consortium detailed the technicalities of the tool. Furthermore, R2 participated with the audience to provide feedback on the clarity of explanations.

The discussion with universities’ representatives focused on two main issues: (1) Tool implementation and (2) managers’ and accountants’ education on GDAE. The second topic was emphasized due to lessons learned from the U1 trial.

First, R1 and R3 discussed the steps to be carried out towards adopting the Tool. As reported by R3, from U1’s experience:

Particularly, R1 highlighted the importance of educational activities to share GDAE knowledge throughout the institution, from managers to technical staff. Educating accountants (and possibly academics) was seen as crucial to achieving the Tool’s objectives. U1’s experience offered practical insights into how to involve staff and strengthen their engagement, thereby ensuring alignment with the aim of the GDAE. Referring to the forms of institutional work involved (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006), the importance of constructing actors’ identities in relation to the new routines of their work environment emerges, reflecting on the shift in normative associations tied to their activities, undermining their assumptions and beliefs connected with the risks associated with this new institution, highlighting the essential role of support.

Some universities raised concerns about their ability to provide adequate education on the topic. In particular, the Deputy Rector for Equal Opportunities at a small university stated:

At the end of the event, several universities expressed their interest in starting the Tool implementation in January 2023. To support ongoing education on the topic, the Consortium created an open-access repository including (1) the event recording, (2) presentation slides, (3) training videos by the Group, (4) U1’s reclassified chart of accounts and (5) a FAQ section. The event functioned as an education activity (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006) showcasing the Tool’s potential to a broader audience, despite universities calling for more structured training from the Conference.

Table 6 summarizes the types of institutional work performed, the mechanisms employed to influence this work and the sources of these efforts, including the actors involved.

This study investigates how actors engage in integrating gender accounting tools into existing university accounting systems to support GDAE. Using the institutional work framework (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006), this research explores the development of an innovative accounting tool at meso-level, its integration with existing systems and its organizational impact. Here, accounting becomes a space where public institutions and their actors interact to promote gender equality (Carmona and Ezzamel, 2016; Khalifa and Scarparo, 2021), a key dimension of social challenges (Alawattage et al., 2021; Carnegie et al., 2024). The use of action research in a gender accounting study offers new perspectives on institutional framework (Clavero and Galligan, 2020), showing how accounting change is mainly driven by relationships between actors and their ability to surface the challenges they deal with, more than by internal institutional dynamics (Clavero and Galligan, 2020; Mackay et al., 2011). In this way, the institutional work framework proves useful for future gender accounting research.

This study presents some novelties. First, while previous accounting research has investigated how protocols, procedures, and processes promote or counteract gender equality (Clavijo and Perray-Redslob, 2024; Galizzi and Siboni, 2016; Roos et al., 2020), here an accounting tool is created from the ground up aiming at challenging the “gendered and gendering” nature of accounting, producing a “gender accounting gaze” (Broadbent, 1998; Carmona and Ezzamel, 2016). As Marx (2019) argues, new accounting practices are essential for understanding how public services affect gender equality. The Tool enables GDAE and make universities’ efforts towards gender equality visible (Carmona and Ezzamel, 2016; Haynes, 2017, 2024; Khalifa and Scarparo, 2021), offering insights into how innovative accounting can address inequalities (Alawattage et al., 2021; Bebbington and Unerman, 2020; Haynes, 2024).

However, if not supported by broader organizational and institutional change, accounting tools could reinforce existing gendered logics (Haynes, 2024). Therefore, this research uses the institutional work framework to study meso-level processes where actors attempt to create new institutions (Jalali Aliabadi et al., 2021), and introduce them at the micro-level, navigating related challenges. This framework shows how actors mobilize institutional work to create new gender accounting practices, challenging assumptions on gender neutral accounting (Broadbent, 1998) and integrate different perspectives into existing systems (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006). This supports the idea of “accounting as a multidimensional technical, social and moral practice” (Carnegie et al., 2024 p. 2).

Unlike previous studies that analysed institutional forms adopted to counteract gender initiatives in organizations (Roos et al., 2020), this study focuses on efforts to create gender accounting practices.

The proposed tool can foster organizational change by supporting gender equality, fitting organizational features (Jönsson and Lukka, 2006) and strengthening practitioners' emancipatory power (Baard and Dumay, 2020). The tool was also tested to avoid potential shortcomings in constructing its meanings within organizations and enhance practitioners’ sensemaking (Apostol et al., 2021) and shared understanding (Suomala et al., 2014).

The adoption of the action research approach facilitated the exploration of various forms of institutional work during the phases (Susman and Evered, 1978) of the Tool’s development, highlighting what worked and what did not (Table 6), in continuous interaction with the gender perspective.

As Galizzi et al. (2023) state, promoting gender equality requires actors to be aware of gender issues and to rethink accounting’s cultural meaning (Broadbent, 1998). In this case, during the diagnosis phase, changing normative associations (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006) helped the Group’s efforts to leverage the Board’s mandate and underscore GDAE’s importance in reshaping accounting’s cultural foundations.

In the action planning phase, the Conference aligned with national priorities on gender equality (e.g. from the MEF), promoting a cultural shift in universities. Global experiences confirm that political commitment is key at the beginning of GRB (Rubin and Bartle, 2005; Steccolini, 2019). Indeed, maintaining alignment with the Board sustained a shared discourse on accounting’s role in gender equality, forming the foundation of the meso-level process.

The Tool also came from reflecting on how GDAE could be implemented in universities. The educating form of institutional work (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006) was crucial both at meso- and micro-levels (Farooq and de Villiers, 2019a). Early discussions emphasized aligning the new tool with existing accounting systems. Mimicry (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006) allowed legitimacy by connecting the Tool to existing platforms. Feasibility is crucial when integrating gender perspectives into accounting (Khalifa and Scarparo, 2021; Marx, 2019); ignoring this would continue to reinforce the discourse of accounting as gendering practice (Broadbent, 1998).

In the action taking phase, meso- and micro-levels intertwine. At the meso-level, reflections on feasibility led to engagement with the Consortium managing the accounting platform, supported by advocacy (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006) and institutional support of the Conference. The Board’s mandate allowed the Group to collaborate with key actors (the Consortium), fostering the inter-organizational peer group, and lead to the construction of a normative network (Hayne and Free, 2014), reinforcing the importance of GDAE and increasing commitment to the project.

Creating the new institution meant rethinking accounting casualties and linking expenditures with gender equality. Since accounting reflects dominant (masculine) cultural norms (Broadbent, 1998), theorizing (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006) helped change normative associations, remaking the connections between organizational practices and their cultural foundations, and incorporating a gender perspective within the accounting gaze (Carmona and Ezzamel, 2016). The study thus shows that actors may employ multiple forms of institutional work to support one another within the same category (Farooq and de Villiers, 2019a).

University governance was essential for implementing the Tool, as shown in U1 (Rubin and Bartle, 2023; Martínez Guzmán, 2024a; Steccolini, 2019).

The Tool aimed to facilitate the introduction of new accounting discourses (Carmona and Ezzamel, 2016; Khalifa and Scarparo, 2021), foster institutional change, ease GDAE implementation and reduce the burden on accountants. Different forms of institutional work supported this: mimicry by using the Consortium’s platform; focusing on analytical accounting and expenditures; using pre-filled labels to reduce ambiguity; education through U1’s reclassified chart of accounts; public events; and an open-access repository.

Still, the action evaluation phase shows challenges. As Martínez Guzmán (2024b) notes, civil servants might resist GRB when it increases their workload. In U1 top management support encouraged participation (e.g. the Head of Accounting, the local group for GRB), and advocacy from R3 (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006; Battilana et al., 2009; Hwang and Powell, 2005) helped engage key figures, but many accountants were not fully involved. Relying on formal procedures (Jalali Aliabadi et al., 2021) and unit coordinators led to weak organizational engagement. Formal and informal communication are often gendered (Broadbent, 1998, 2016), whereas creating a “gender accounting gaze” requires fostering gender awareness among actors to challenge the underlying assumptions of their work (Carmona and Ezzamel, 2016). Therefore, the institutional work to create the Tool had limited effects, especially in constructing accountants’ identities to redefine their relationship with their field (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006). While mimicry improved the Tool accessibility, understanding remained limited.

Attempts to maintain the institution through embedding and routinizing (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006), the Tool via daily practices was led by U1’s Accounting Office. This also aimed to disrupt existing norms (undermining assumptions and beliefs on which accounting is based), but proved insufficient for full implementation. The case highlights that institutional change often requires the interplay between different categories of institutional work, such as creating and disrupting institutions (Lawrence et al., 2009; Farooq and de Villiers, 2019a).

The learning phase stresses the importance of supporting actors in redefining their professional identity and routines according to GDAE. Micro-level actors (i.e. the local group on GRB) are essential for helping universities implement gender accounting; the introduction of a gender accounting gaze thus needs the interplay of several actors (Khalifa and Scarparo, 2021; Polzer and Seiwald, 2021). This action research confirms that strong political commitment is relevant (Steccolini, 2019) despite not being enough: those who embed the gender gaze into accounting must be aware and educated on gender issues (Martínez Guzmán, 2024b). In this case, both accountants and academics demonstrated limited gender awareness and engaged in minimal collaboration, thereby weakening the effectiveness of the educating form of institutional work. Formal communication (Jalali Aliabadi et al., 2021) through unit coordinators, due to university size and structure, was not effective in promoting a gender culture. Likewise, embedding and routinizing forms of institutional work via the Accounting Office invitation was ineffective, due to poor academic engagement.

The local group on GRB had to resolve ambiguities thanks to its expertise. Lawrence and Suddaby (2006) explain that institutional work beyond normative boundaries requires strong cultural competence thus it is more likely to be carried out by field experts.

The limited involvement of accountants also reveals broader organizational shortcomings in supporting GDAE goals. Political support from rectors, delegates or boards is not enough to spread gender awareness within organizations. Integrating gender in public budgeting requires the full commitment of all organizational actors (Galizzi et al., 2023; Polzer and Seiwald, 2021) to change internal norms and values. As Lawrence and Suddaby (2006, p. 234) observe “maintenance of institutions through reproduction of norms and belief systems (valourizing/demonizing, mythologizing and embedding and routinizing) is generally less comprehensible; the actors engaged in the routines and rituals of reproduction appear largely unaware of the original purpose, or the ultimate outcome, of their actions”. And with regard to accounting Broadbent (1998, p. 293) warned that “if we allow ‘conventional accounting’ to remain, we run the risk of ‘objective’ measures and instrumental rationality leading discourses”.

Education and training are essential to embed the gender perspective into daily accounting routines (Khalifa and Scarparo, 2021) and studies on GRB suggest that such activities enhance actors’ gender awareness, assign new responsibilities and provide practical tools for addressing issues like expenditure classification ambiguities (Martínez Guzmán, 2024b; Polzer and Seiwald, 2021). Given the shortcomings highlighted in the case, the Conference, which issued the GRB guidelines, can play a key national role in GDAE education, by fostering knowledge diffusion, encouraging institutional dialogue on gender equality and promoting recognition of GRB’s value in organizational change.

This research shows that accountants have to be educated to question their identity, to revise their assumptions, their gaze on their own work and its impact on the promotion of gender equality, thus allowing accounting to generate change. Then this work on one’s own gaze can be a lever to generate an organizational and structural gender-responsive accounting perspective. Only then can accounting challenge its nature as a gendered and gendering practice. All this, however, takes time. Gender equality is a long-term goal (Broadbent, 2016; Carmona and Ezzamel, 2016; Roos et al., 2020) and the tools to support it need time and resources to be implemented and tested, by acknowledging and addressing the contribution of all organizational actors.

Gender equality represents one of the most pressing challenges in today’s society, and public organizations like universities have a key role in addressing it (EU, 2012a), contributing to societal development (Bebbington and Unerman, 2020; Hopper, 2019).

This study explores how key actors influence the integration of a gender perspective into accounting practices in the Italian university setting. Specifically, this action research examines the institutional work (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006) carried out by these actors while developing a tool to support GDAE. It investigates how this work happens at the meso-level, the implementation of accounting practices at the micro-level and how these processes help increase the visibility of gender equality.

The institutional work perspective, which proves to be particularly suited to capturing the complex interplay of activities aimed at creating, maintaining and disrupting institutions, is employed to understand the factors that support or challenge implementation. Although studies about gender equality, and gender accounting in particular, within an institutional work perspective remains limited (Clavero and Galligan, 2020; Maguire and Hardy, 2009; Roos et al., 2020), this research offers a nuanced theoretical interpretation of the processes underpinning the development and adoption of gender accounting practices in universities.

This study shows how gender accounting challenges traditional accounting logics by including different rationalities (Broadbent, 1998; Carmona and Ezzamel, 2016; Haynes, 2017, 2024). In doing so, it provides theoretical insights into the struggle to introduce alternative logics into established accounting processes, highlighting the role of actors who either support or resist change, driven by different motivations. The findings help to better understand how such processes can be influenced, especially at the micro-level.

This study contributes to accounting in several ways. First, while prior accounting research has explored how accounting practices can either support or hinder gender equality at the micro-level (Clavijo and Perray-Redslob, 2024; Galizzi and Siboni, 2016), this study focused on the development of an accounting tool at the meso-level and its implementation at the micro-level, specifically aiming to challenge the gendered nature of accounting. In doing so, it introduces a new perspective, a “gender accounting gaze” (Broadbent, 1998; Carmona and Ezzamel, 2016). Second, by integrating action research, gender accounting and the institutional work framework, this study confirms the multidimensional nature of accounting, where technical, social and moral dimensions interact to foster a more equitable world (Bebbington and Unerman, 2020; Carnegie et al., 2024).

Grounded in action research, this study lies in the researchers’ active engagement in gender equality practices (Apostol et al., 2021), enabling continuous involvement across all phases (analysed through Susman and Evered’s framework) and the development of tailored solutions (Malmi and Granlund, 2009).

Therefore, the study contributes to both policy making and organizational practice by outlining a pathway for developing gender accounting tools, identifying sources of resistance and suggesting strategies to overcome them. It offers practical suggestions, such as the importance of training and support in implementing gender accounting practices, like GDAE, and highlights the value of collaboration with supra-organizational institutions.

Institutionalizing the GRB within organizations is essential to challenge the gendering role of accounting and addressing inequalities (Carmona and Ezzamel, 2016). However, this study shows that such institutionalization remains difficult. Further research is needed to understand how organizations can be supported in their engagement with GDAE, including revising existing accounting systems and involving diverse actors who could otherwise limit these initiatives. Additional studies should also focus on how to sustain gender accounting in public organizations, especially universities, with attention to educating accountants and redefining their roles.

The limitations of this study are inherent to the research method and the focus on only one pilot case. Since this study focuses on the preliminary phase of the Tool adoption, it does not permit assessing GDAE’s impact on decision-making or its applicability in different organizational contexts.

Moreover, as Marx (2019) points out, gender accounting tools like this one help show gender inequality, but may not fully capture its complexities and intersectional nature (Ghio et al., 2023). For instance, the Tool mainly uses gender-disaggregated data, which might miss deeper structural problems or power dynamics that affect gender equality in organizations. Without broader changes in institutional strategies and practices, accounting tools risk reinforcing existing gendered logics.

Based on the above discussion, further research is warranted to understand what makes gender accounting tools successful at the organizational level, the institutionalization of GRB in universities and how these processes can promote new accounting practices that challenge entrenched gendered logics.

We would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions, which significantly improved the quality of this work. Our gratitude also goes to our colleague Mariafrancesca Sicilia for her valuable feedback throughout the development of the paper. We further acknowledge the contribution of the GRB Group and all those who were involved in the research process, whose efforts and collaboration were essential to this study.