Search results

This chapter gives in “Introduction to the Human Capital Issue” a critical analysis of the standard (economic) Human Capital (HC) theory, with the help of some “traditional” (founding) accounting concepts. From this study, to avoid the accounting and social issues highlighted in “Introduction to the Human Capital Issue,” we present, in “The “Triple Depreciation Line” Model and the Human Capital,” the “Triple Depreciation Line” (TDL) accounting model, developed by Rambaud & Richard (2015b), and we apply it to “HC,” but viewed as genuine accounting capital – a matter of concern – that firms have to protect and maintain.

From a critical review of literature on HC theory, from the origin of this concept to its connection with sustainable development, this chapter provides a conceptual discussion on this notion and on the differences/common points between capital and assets in accounting and economics. Then, it uses a normative accounting model (TDL), initially introduced to extend, in a consistent way, financial accounting to extra-financial issues.

This analysis shows at first that the standard (economic) HC theory is based on a (deliberate) confusion between assets and capital, in line with a standard economic perspective on capital. Therefore, this particular viewpoint implies: an accounting issue for reporting HC, because “traditional” accounting capital and assets are clearly isolated concepts; and a societal issue, because this confusion leads to the idea that HC does not mean that human beings are “capital” (i.e., essential), or have to be maintained, even protected, for themselves. It only means that human beings are mere productive means. The application of the TDL model to an accounting redefinition of HC allows a discussion about some key issues involved in the notion of HC, including the difference between the standard and “accounting” narratives on HC. Finally, this chapter presents some important consequences of this accounting model for HC: the disappearance of the concept of wage and the possibility of reporting repeated (or continuous) use of HC directly in the balance sheet.

This chapter contributes to the literature on HC and in general on capital and assets, by stressing in particular some confusions and misunderstandings in these concepts. It fosters a cross-disciplinary approach of these issues, through economic, accounting, and sustainability viewpoints. This analysis also participates in the development of the TDL model and the research project associated. It finally proposes another perspective, more sustainable, on HC and HC reporting.

The stakes of HC are important in today’s economics, accounting, and sustainable development. The different conceptualizations of HC, and the narratives behind it, may have deep social and corporate implications. In this context, this analysis provides a conceptual, and practicable, framework to develop a more sustainable concept of HC and to enhance working conditions, internal business relations, integrated reporting. As an outcome of these ideas, this chapter also questions the standard corporate governance models.

This chapter gives an original perspective on HC, and in general on the concept of capital, combining an economic and an accounting analysis. It also develops a new way to report HC, using an innovative integrated accounting model, the TDL model.

The purpose of this paper is to first empirically illustrate the construction of accounting for sustainable development tool (Bebbington and Gray, 2001) and, second, to discuss the operationalization of accounting for sustainable development (Bebbington and Larrinaga, 2014).

This research is based on a unique intervention-research approach, the main author having worked part-time for four years on the development of the tool for a business organization in the organic food sector.

This paper proposes an operationalization of sustainable development within an accounting tool and presents the results of the calculations. It also touches briefly upon the organization’s decision not to adopt the tool. The research concludes on the difficulty of operationalizing the economic, social and environmental capitals while proposing results that demonstrate “unsustainability”.

This research in operationalizing sustainable development paves the way for future potential use of the tool described, and future developments to address the model’s current shortcomings, notably in interconnecting social and economic capitals with natural capital.

The non-adoption of the accounting tool raises questions about the acceptability among practitioners of visualizing the unsustainability of their own organization, in particular within “green” and “socially responsible” businesses. Moreover, it raises the question of growth and decoupling of the organization’s impact from its economic growth.

This paper makes three contributions to the current literature. First, it furthers the discussion on how to operationalize accounting for sustainable development, notably by trying to implement capital as a liability (a debt), placing its “maintenance” at the very heart of the design. Second, it offers an initial operationalization of “system thinking” within a tool to account for sustainable development. Finally, it contributes to the literature on “engagement research” through a four-year intervention-research project.

One of the highly debatable issues in the arena of international economics in recent years is whether a country should go for full capital account convertibility. In terms of the timing and process of capital account liberalization, India and China have been remarkably similar. Both started with a more or less closed capital account in the 1970s and the 1980s, in the context of a heavily state-influenced, planned economy. And in both countries, the first wave of liberalization came in the early 1990s and thus, the journey began. The objective of this chapter is to provide a critical analysis of both India and China's approach to the capital account liberalization program in the backdrop of the recent financial crises and to give an account of the theoretical issues that have arisen in international discussions on CAC and India's standpoint on this issue in particular. Second, how far is the capital account liberalization justified in the context of the recent episodes of financial crises that India and China have witnessed? Using a macroempiric model, this chapter tries to answer whether every member country in the IMF should hurriedly go for CAC or not. In addition, empirically through FMOLS, the authors pool in the “Rupee Convertibility” and “Renminbi Internationalization” along with exchange rate variation and its implications for India's and China's BoP situation (in terms of the export–import position and FDI flows) based on data from 1992 to 2017. ^{1 , 2}

This study aims to examine whether or not listed companies' disclosure of intellectual capital is value‐relevant in share markets and to assess its moderating role in the value‐relevance of reported earnings and equity following the adoption of international financial reporting standards (IFRS).

A measure of intellectual capital disclosure (ICD), based on a content analysis of the text in annual reports sampled from listed companies in Britain, Australia, Hong Kong and Singapore, is incorporated in the models to examine the direct and moderating roles of ICD in a firm's valuation.

The results reveal that ICD is positively associated with market price (i.e. has value relevance) in companies in two of the four countries and in non‐traditional industries. Further, the incremental value relevance of earnings and net assets is mostly non‐significant; however, interaction of these variables with ICD considerably increases the basic coefficients and the explanatory power of the models.

Prior research on the value relevance of reported accounting numbers has not considered the incremental effect of textual ICD in annual reports. This study extends value relevance models by combining textual ICD with accounting numbers in an attempt to assess investors' valuation of firms.

From the findings, a case is made for corporate management (particularly in certain countries and industries) to integrate its accounting policy choices regarding good will and intangibles with its strategies for disclosure of broad intellectual capital information.

First‐time evidence is provided that text‐based ICD is value‐relevant in capital markets and on its moderating effect for the value‐relevance of reported accounting numbers.

In the context of intellectual capital (IC) research, it has been proposed that management accounting is most appropriately situated as an element of a firm's structural capital. This paper sets out to explore this contention within the confines of the indigenous Irish information and communications technology (ICT) sector.

A survey instrument was used to collect the necessary data and responses from 88 firms were generated. A form of structural equation modelling (SEM) called partial least squares (PLS) was used to test the data.

The findings suggest that management accounting systems within the indigenous Irish ICT sector have a positive influence on the generation of management accounting information. No statistical support was found, however, for the suggestion that management accounting systems positively influence firms' structural capital, whereas the results did indicate a positive relationship between management accounting information and structural capital. The findings strongly support previous research on the relationships between the human, structural and relational dimensions of IC and business performance.

The research was conducted solely within the confines of the Irish ICT sector. Further research is needed to explore the relevant relationships.

It is argued strongly that firms adapt/develop management accounting systems to furnish themselves with the appropriate information required for the management and measurement of their increasingly valuable stock of IC.

The paper explicitly explores the relationship between management accounting and structural capital.

The purpose of this paper is to report and discuss the principal findings of a recent study of thinking and practice about workforce health and wellbeing among UK accounting and finance and human resource management professionals.

The data informing the paper were collected using postal questionnaires to two samples of 1,000 UK accounting and finance and human resource directors. The research design incorporated the facility for a full second mailing to respondents.

The responses received from the sample of human resource directors were generally more supportive of viewing workforce health and wellbeing as a valuable organisational asset. Accounting and finance professionals employed in private sector organisations were the least enthusiastic about such issues.

While the design of the questionnaire afforded the opportunity for commentary on answers by respondents, semi‐structured interviews will allow a more detailed exploration of the issues.

The UK accountancy profession has yet to fully appreciate the significance of the intellectual capital phenomenon. In seeking to engage health and wellbeing issues, it may be desirable to consider collaboration with the human resource management profession.

Health and wellbeing have seldom been recognised as key constituents of human capital. Consequently, this is the first such study to be carried out.

Perceived increases in the proportion of human capital in the production mix are matched by calls for the development of methods of accounting for human capital. The term “capital” is used in a range of academic and professional fields. Cultural capital is a term from sociology, closely related in meaning to human capital and human resources, but providing a unique perspective of its own. This paper suggests that, by reaching outside the traditional economic rationality of the discourse on human resources or human capital, cultural capital provides insights for accounting. In particular, it suggests that a form of human resource accounting based on cultural capital is needed to reflect the plural authority and accountability structures of organizations.

This paper aims to increase awareness of work on accounting for natural capital at the national and international level that has been ongoing for many years and has recently culminated in the adoption of international statistical standards for environmental-economic accounting.

The paper provides the context for work on natural capital accounting with particular links to the measurement of progress and a brief history of the work on natural capital accounting from an official statistics perspective and summarizes the key aspects of the technical and accounting aspects of the new international statistical standards. The paper also outlines some of the limitations of the approach and required research.

The paper highlights that while natural capital accounting does not provide a complete basis for assessment of sustainable development, a broad body of work is now in place to use accounting approaches for the assessment of environmental sustainability.

The paper observes that much of the work on natural capital accounting from the perspective of the official statistics community has not engaged the academic community and there is strong potential for collaboration to take this work forward particularly in the area of land and ecosystem accounting.

The paper describes a framework for the organization of information on the links between environmental and economic issues and an indication of the relevance of this work for the broader measurement of progress. Compilation of data following the framework is intended to provide a broader base of information for public policy and other decisions and thus has the potential to influence social, economic and environmental outcomes.

The paper’s value lies in raising awareness of the work that has been developing outside of the academic community but which likely has many connections to existing research and ongoing policy discussions.

In recent years, accrual accounting has become increasingly popular in many governments. Yet some questions remain unresolved. Previous literature questioned whether all governmental assets should be capitalized. Whereas those studies mostly focussed separately on a limited number of assets, such as infrastructure, military assets or heritage assets, the purpose of this paper is to expand these views by taking a holistic approach to their treatment.

The paper is based on a literature review combined with archival data, being the IPSAS (International Public Sector Accounting Standards).

The analysis distinguishes between the business and government sectors of the economy and argues that business accounting for assets cannot be applied to the public sector without significant modification. Secondly, within the public sector, it is argued that “businesslike assets” (such as normal buildings and equipment) should be distinguished from “specific governmental assets” (such as art galleries), where the latter should be reported off balance sheet as community assets held in trust by governments for community enjoyment.

The current paper presents a solution for recognizing capital assets in different situations.

The paper reveals some basic differences in points of view between the governmental dimension versus a businesslike dimension in considering capital assets.

There are two main alternative explanations in the literature for the patterns of financial reporting during the period of the British Industrial Revolution (BIR). Rob Bryer sees the new social relations of production in which manufacturing entrepreneurs strove to increase the productivity of wage‐labour as leading to a distinct capitalist “calculative mentality”, focused on the return on capital employed; Dick Edwards argues from agency precepts that financial reporting emerged with the transition from “industrial” to “financial capitalism”. This paper aims to reappraise these theorisations using new archival evidence.

Canals, the crucial transport network during the BIR, were owned by limited liability companies financed by outside investors, with clear separation of ownership and control, yet were not capitalist in Bryer's sense because their profits came from a form of rent (tolls on freight) not from the exploitation of wage‐labour. The paper reviews the financial statements of seven major English canals from the 1770s to the 1850s, and uses these findings as a basis for appraising the above‐mentioned theories.

The financial statements of English canal companies do not distinguish profit or enable users to calculate rates of return on capital employed and so assess the performance of management. This sharply conflicts with agency theory but is consistent with Bryer's thesis.

The paper contributes to the authors' understanding of how and why corporate financial reporting emerged, and the relationship between this process and the transition to the capitalist mode of production.