Search results

Specific asset recognition rules often bar expenses for research and development (R&D) from recognition on corporate balance sheets. This tangible‐intangible accounting asymmetry has led to the development of intellectual capital reports (ICRs) for intangibles in general and for R&D in particular. Thus, two dichotomous reporting formats coexist in corporate disclosure. The purpose of this article is to bring together more closely the information on project intangibles from R&D provided by voluntary and mandatory reporting systems.

The authors used an experimental case study approach in a joint research project with a non‐university research and technology organisation (RTO). The methods deployed in the project included semi‐structured interviews, Delphi techniques and normative reasoning.

The results show that it is possible to use financial reporting's systematic approach and typical layout to ally the presumed strengths of financial reporting (i.e. the existence of standardised ways of interpretation and an educated readership) and indicator‐based ICRs (i.e. the capability of capturing the generic features of innovation activity).

Given the predominance of financial reporting's educated readership, it is useful to produce voluntary disclosures in such a form that the information can easily be embedded in the overall picture painted by financial numbers.

Inductive‐analytical ICRs are typically not intertwined with financial accounting. The article elaborates on linkages between financial accounting and inductive‐analytical reporting models and proposes a classification scheme for project intangibles from R&D based on information reliability.

This paper considers a strategic delegation setting with R&D spillovers in a Cournot market. The game we analyze has four stages. First, owners have the option to hire a manager. If they decide to delegate, then in the contracting stage they have to determine the optimal incentives for the managers. In the R&D stage, the levels of investments in research and development are chosen which reduce production costs. Finally, in the production stage quantities offered on the market are selected. We characterize the sub-game perfect outcomes of this game depending on the level of R&D spillovers and derive the following main insights. First, in a case where no spillovers exist, both owners have the incentive to delegate R&D and production decisions to managers. This leads to higher outputs, higher R&D activities, but lower profits for the firms in comparison with an entrepreneurial (owner-managed) firm. These results still hold if the basic production unit costs are high, independent of the existence of spillovers. In these cases delegation leads to an increase in social welfare. Second, we demonstrate that when spillovers exist and basic unit production costs are low, then there are situations where owners delegate but discourage managers from being aggressive. This “soft” commitment leads to lower outputs, lower R&D, but higher profits for the firms in comparison with an entrepreneurial firm. Here, however, delegation results in lower welfare.

The paper serves as an introduction to the special issue on Heinz von Foerster. Major episodes of his life are sketched and related to his scientific convictions regarding transdisciplinary research and radical constructivist. In the second part the contributions to the issue are summarized. Finally, the relevance of Foerster's work is discussed.

The arguments are based on the scientific literature.

Foerster argued against reductionist science and in favor of transdisciplinary research in order to trigger further scientific developments.

By using transdiciplinary and choosing the constructivist perspective, science will increase its productivity. This should be reflected in science policy.

By pointing at the variety of his scientific output and his influence on many colleagues and students, the paper is in support of Foerster's non‐reductionist worldview.

At the Annual General Meeting of ISHM‐France, held on 12 June 1991, the following were elected:

By combining manifold approaches from migrant entrepreneurship and family business studies, the purpose of the paper is to shed some light upon the contextual features of motivation, resources, generational pathways of Turkish migrant family entrepreneurs in Berlin – through the lens of a mixed and multiple embeddedness approach.

An explorative research design, based on an eclectic theoretical framework and on purposive sampling, combines qualitative in-depth interviews/content analysis and on-site observation resulting in an almost ethnographic assessment of selected case studies of Turkish migrant family entrepreneurs (concerning age (min. 20 years), size (15+ employees) and currently at a stage of succession).

The results show that despite specific strategies vary – four circumstances hold true for all cases: (1) firm trajectories were characterized by little strategic planning and mostly trail-and error processes in the past and business survival is highly dependent on owner families; (2) owner families heavily relied on personal, family and collective resources, not benefiting from promotion programmes or micro-funding measures for SMEs; (3) owner families have actively developed their (mixed) embeddings during the growth of their migrant business beyond the single ethnic group at various spatial scales; (4) succession adds another layer of context – what we call here multiple embeddedness – with ambivalent effects: emerging potentials and conflicts between the preceding and succeeding generation.

Results have shown that is it necessary to set up both: customized funding opportunities for migrant start-ups in general and succession consulting for migrant family entrepreneurs in particular. Given the magnitude of family migrant entrepreneurs and the accelerating migration patterns in most Western European countries, there is urgent need for such measures.

Family entrepreneurship has been often discussed without a migration perspective, neither taking a systematic look at pertinent motivation, resources, and future trajectories nor context. Migrant entrepreneurship studies barely take the family or family-specific issues (e.g. succession) into account, and mainly deal with the integration or economic aspects. Our mixed and multiple embeddedness approach allows for a holistic view on transgenerational migrant family entrepreneurship by integrating both socio-spatial (actor, family, network, micro, meso, macro) and multi-generational contexts (preceding, succeeding).