Search results

This study reports the results of an empirical examination of Australian annual reporting of intellectual capital. The findings suggest that the development of a model for reporting intangibles is piecemeal and not widely spread. The outcomes of our exploratory investigation are threefold. First, the key components of intellectual capital are poorly understood, inadequately identified, inefficiently managed, and not reported within a consistent framework when reported at all. Second, the main areas of intellectual capital reporting focus on human resources; technology and intellectual property rights; and organisational and workplace structure. Third, even in an Australian enterprise thought of as “best practice” in this regard, a comprehensive management framework for intellectual capital is yet to be developed, especially for collecting and reporting intellectual capital formation. In conclusion, Australian companies do not compare favourably with several European firms in their ability to measure and report their intellectual capital in the annual report.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the engagement with integrated reporting (IR) of the Development Bank of Singapore (DBS), as one of the banks that pioneered IR. Banking industry members face critical sector-specific issues regarding the use of capitals, especially the disclosure of relational and natural capital-related information, and reporting of the outcomes of capitals. This study examines an innovative approach to accounting for multiple capitals adopted by DBS during its journey toward IR.

This empirical research follows the case study method, using semi-structured interviews with DBS’s managers, and analyzing reports and other documentation.

The authors find that DBS re-conceptualizes, re-categorizes and measures multiple capitals as a form of non-financial value using the balance sheet approach to make visible the interactions and potential tensions (trade-offs) among capitals.

Case studies are best used to understand a specific context, so the findings of this study cannot be generalized statistically. However, the study does provide insights into the banking industry that may be applicable to other organizations.

The categorization and reporting of multiple capitals using the balance sheet approach and the integration of the balanced scorecard are innovative operationalizations of the International <IR> Framework.

This study provides an innovative approach to the categorization and measurement of multiple capitals. It represents a step toward reducing the gap between research and practice on IR.

With the emergence of the basis of intellectual capital, competitive advantage was considered as the focus of competitive strategies, and the knowledge resulting from this approach became the basis for the development and strategic directions of companies in various fields of the company such as finance and accounting. The purpose of this study is sustainable intellectual capital reporting framework and evaluation of key examples in the context of capital market companies.

The methodology of this study was exploratory from the point of view of the developmental result and based on the type of objective and qualitative and quantitative basis was used to collect the data. The statistical population in the qualitative part was university experts and in the quantitative part financial managers of capital market companies. Data collection tools were interviews in the qualitative part and fuzzy scales and language comparison checklists in the quantitative part. Therefore, first through three stages of coding, the dimensions of the model were identified, and based on the fuzzy Delphi analysis, the reliability level was determined through the average between the first round and the second round of Delphi. Finally, through the default tests, the appropriate fuzzy model was first determined, and then hierarchical fuzzy analysis based on TODIM's approach was used to determine the most favorable axis of sustainable intellectual capital reporting.

The results in the qualitative part indicate the existence of 3 categories and 6 components and 39 conceptual themes in the form of a six-dimensional model. In the quantitative part, the results showed that by confirming the dimensions identified through fuzzy Delphi analysis, the most desirable axis of intellectual capital reporting is the component of technological capital reporting, which can play a more effective role in sustainable reporting.

This study, relying on the importance of the consequences of sustainable intellectual capital reporting, tries to evaluate the consequences of this field of financial reporting due to the lack of a coherent theoretical framework about capital market companies. In addition, the framework presented in this study promotes integrated thinking for firms to it would provide some level of incentive to those charged with governance concerning the voluntary compliance with the sustainable intellectual capital reporting framework.

A sustainability reporting framework must demonstrate that resources are fairly bought and used to support diverse life on earth within habitable ranges. The purpose of this paper is to propose a principle-based sustainability reporting framework that measures, audits and reports based on sustainability outcomes and impacts as part of the corporate reporting framework.

This paper draws on the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs) and targets for preparing a reporting framework. It uses Gaia Theory and the Theory of Distributive Justice constructs that align with sustainable development principles to delineate a reporting approach.

Frameworks that promote sustainability reporting have increasingly embraced UN SDGs but overly focus on performance promoting inter-firm comparisons. This framework introduces principle-based sustainability reporting where firms demonstrate their chosen contribution to sustainable development using 17 UN SDGs as goal posts.

This conceptual paper presents theoretical constructs that future research can empirically validate to enhance sustainability reporting.

This principle-based sustainability reporting framework is implementable for corporate reporting, where sustainability reporting integrates with the financial and economic intellectual capital reporting frameworks.

This framework highlights the importance of acquiring and using resources to distribute justice and fairness. It is a joint project between firms and stakeholders.

This framework promotes integrated thinking for firms to engage in principle-based sustainability reporting and provides a roadmap for sustainability reporting using the SDG Compass logic model.

To investigate, compare and document the magnitude and extent of intellectual capital disclosure to sustainability disclosure during a transition from a voluntary to mandated “comply or explain” sustainability reporting regime. And to empirically test if, during the regime transition period, changes in the magnitude (extent) of sustainability disclosure is a significant determinant of changes in the magnitude (extent) of intellectual capital disclosure.

Content analysis of 1,744 annual reports drawn from 436 Singapore listed firms spanning a four-year observation window (i.e. April 1, 2014 to March 31, 2018). The magnitude (number of sentences) and extent (number of items) of (1) intellectual capital disclosure measured using a 38-item index; (2) sustainability disclosure of a 105-item index; and (3) 15-item index to measure the magnitude and extent of joint sustainability/intellectual capital disclosure.

The average magnitude and extent of sustainability and the joint sustainability/intellectual capital disclosure increased whilst the average magnitude and extent of intellectual capital disclosure increased when regulatory discussion of a change to mandated sustainability reporting emerged. However, in the annual period the mandated sustainability reporting became effective while the average magnitude and extent of intellectual capital disclosure declined. Regression tests indicate a significant (insignificant) association between the change in the magnitude (extent) of sustainability disclosure and intellectual capital disclosure.

From a research perspective, the analysis implies researchers investigating the consequences of mandated sustainability disclosure should consider impact on alternative non-financial disclosure themes and develop theoretical frameworks to derive why and how management may shift non-financial reporting strategies and practices.

For regulators, findings suggest there may be a need to weigh spillover costs of reductions in transparency related to intellectual capital. For investors, declines in the magnitude and extent of intellectual capital disclosure following a transition to mandated sustainability reporting may limit future firm valuation particularly of heavy intangible asset-oriented firms.

Initial study empirically investigating the impact of the transition from a voluntary to mandated sustainability reporting regime on the magnitude and extent of intellectual capital disclosure.

This paper has two purposes: to identify and explain the major forces that are causing the increasing need for operational reporting and intellectual capital (IC) reporting for European companies; and to identify the necessary and sufficient conditions for operational and intellectual capital reporting if such reporting is to be meaningful for information users.

The approach for this paper has been to examine relevant papers, reports, guidelines, compendiums, annual reports, opinions, submissions and legislation.

Eight determining forces are identified that make the basis of the case for the provision of operating and IC information: the long‐standing global dominance and growth of the US economy; the emergence of business models other than the value chain (especially the emergence of network businesses); the changing nature of stock exchanges; the influence of different investment fund types (mutual, pension and hedge funds); the roles of buy‐side and sell‐side analysts; global and European investment index development; rating agency activity; and financial reporting and corporate governance regime development.

The eight forces are interdependent and immutable. Comprehensive operational and IC reporting are unavoidable. Accordingly, the authors propose that the necessary and sufficient conditions for adequate enterprise information reporting are: a legal requirement for mandatory operational and IC reporting and attendant regulatory framework(s) where the legal framework is based on the concept of neglect; key operating and IC resource status and activity performance definitions and metrics that reflect the enterprise's underlying business model(s); and (3) a mapping of the capitalized operational and IC investments that are by definition normally expensed to the financial report accounts.

The authors believe that no one has previously formally proposed a mandatory operational and IC reporting requirement; a legal reference frame of reference based on the legal concept of neglect; standard definitions for operational and IC performance metrics; a reference framework for information quality that is, inter alia, based on the consistency, comparability and comprehensiveness of reported metrics; and the requirement to map all capitalized IC resources back to the financial reports of the company.

With a view to enabling organisations provide a clear understanding of firm value creation, several national and supranational institutions have produced guidelines and frameworks for externally reporting intellectual capital (IC). In many cases regulators, the accounting profession and accounting scholars have driven these initiatives. The purpose of this paper is to summarise, analyse and compare the guidelines and frameworks that have been developed with a focus on externally reporting IC.

The paper analyses the assumptions underpinning 20 guidelines and frameworks that have been developed with a focus on reporting IC using a self-constructed framework.

The review resulted in a comparison of IC reporting guidelines and framework based on target audience, role of IC within the organisational strategic management process and reporting IC indicator. It provides an understanding of the state of the art in relation to external reporting of IC.

The insights provided by the comparison of the guidelines and frameworks are likely to be helpful for practitioners wanting to adopt or develop an IC reporting model for their organisation. Policy-makers will find these insights beneficial when attempting to refine existing frameworks and guidelines for reporting IC and in developing new ones to suit various circumstances. Also, this paper provides a useful review for academics.

This is the first paper to provide a review of a large number of business reporting guidelines and frameworks with a focus on IC. It is a valuable reference for practitioners, policy-makers and academics on IC reporting models.

The purpose of this paper is to examine intellectual capital reporting patterns of New Zealand companies over a longitudinal period, comparing knowledge intensive companies with traditional product-based companies.

Content analysis was used to examine the intellectual capital reporting of five knowledge intensive companies and five traditional product-based companies listed on the New Zealand Stock Exchange during 2004-2010.

The longitudinal study found that although there was an increase in intellectual capital reporting from 2004 to 2010, there was no strong pattern reflecting a marked increase in reporting over the time period. The findings also show that the level of intellectual capital reporting cannot be determined by the type of organisation. Further, the majority of intellectual capital reporting was found to be in discursive form and only a small percentage of reporting conveyed negative news.

The results of this study are limited by the small sample size overall and the small number of companies in both the knowledge intensive and the traditional product-based groups.

The research suggests areas that could be considered by regulatory bodies and policy makers when developing more informed intellectual capital reporting guidelines.

This research provides a basis for further research, debate and action regarding intellectual capital in both academia and practice. Longitudinal intellectual capital reporting research and distinctions between knowledge intensive and traditional product-based companies have seldom been undertaken. Consequently little is known about the changes in intellectual capital reporting over time or the differences in intellectual capital reporting, if any, between type of company.

This paper examines the gap between reporting and managers’ behaviour to challenge the current theoretical underpinnings of intellectual capital (IC) disclosure practice and research. The authors explore how the key features from IC and integrated reporting can be combined to develop an extended model for companies to comply with EU Directive 2014/95/EU and increase trust in corporate disclosures and reports.

This essay relies on academic literature and examples from practice to critique the theories that explain corporate disclosure and reporting but do not change management behaviour. Based on this critique, the authors argue for a change in the fundamental theories of stewardship to frame a new concept for corporate disclosure incorporating using a multi-capitals framework.

We argue that, while the inconsistency between organisations’ reporting and behaviour persists, increasing, renewing or extending the information disclosed is not enough to instil trust in corporations. Stewardship over a company’s resources is necessary for increasing trust. The unanticipated consequences of dishonest behaviour by managers and shareholders compels a new application of stewardship theory that works as an overarching guide for managerial behaviour and disclosure. Emanating from this new model is a realisation that managers must abandon agency theory in practice, and specifically the bonus contract.

We call for future empirical research to explore the role of stewardship theory within the dynamics of corporate disclosure using the approach. The research implications of those studies should incorporate the potential impacts on management behaviours within a stewardship framework and how those actions, and their outcomes, are disclosed for rebuilding public trust in business.

The implications for integrated reporting and reports complying with the new EU Directive are profound. Both instruments rely on agency theory to coax managers into reducing information asymmetry by disclosing more. However, agency theory only re-affirms the power managers have over corporate information. It does not change their behaviour, nor to act in the interest of all stakeholders as the stewards of an organisation’s resources.

We advocate that, in business education, greater emphasis is needed on how stewardship has a more positive impact on management behaviour than agency, legitimacy and stakeholder theories.

We reflect on the current and compelling issues permeating the international landscape of corporate reporting and disclosure and explain why current theories which explain corporate disclosures do not change behaviour or engender trust in business and offer an alternative disclosure model based on stewardship theory.

In integrated reporting, financial and non-financial performance is presented interactively, as the value creation abilities of corporations are shaped via capitals, the importance of the topic increases day by day. In addition to this, differentiation of importance of basic and sub-dimensions representing capitals between institutions leads to questions on which weight these should take place. From this point, this paper aims to develop capitals in integrated reporting and to weight the indicators representing them.

In this study, first, to ensure that each component of capital is included in integrated reporting, governance capital has been added to capitals, which are identified in the international integrated reporting framework (the framework). Then, weights of each capital dimension and indicators within these dimensions have been determined in a banking sector example with the entropy method.

Including the 2014-2017 period, an efficient weight assessment approach with the entropy method has been presented and it was observed that the most weighted element is the intellectual capital.

The limitations of this study are the lack of an agreed general indicator framework for indicators representing multiple capitals in integrated reporting, each bank’s data disclosure of different indicators and differentiation of the shared data between sources.

This study guides the weighting studies necessary for integrated performance measurement.

It is foreseen that this study will be effective in the development of integrated thinking and this effect will contribute to the overall functioning of all sectors beyond the banking sector, which is the application area of the study.

The study is the first original study in the literature in terms of providing a new dimension by adding the governance capital to the capitals defined in the Framework.