Search results

Within the stream of research on public sector accounting standards, heritage asset accounting represents a difficult and challenging issue. This paper intends to join the debate on heritage reporting by carrying out a critical review of the Consultation Paper (CP) “Financial Reporting for Heritage in the Public Sector” issued by the International Public Sector Accounting Standards Board (IPSASB) in order to highlight its strengths and weaknesses and to make recommendations.

To this end, the current study adopts document analysis as a qualitative research method by referring to Italy as a typical and critical case study. Moreover, the authors actively took part in the Italian working group on heritage assets reporting, so they are well-informed people about the Italian point of view as well as the broad discussion underpinning the Italian response.

Evidence demonstrates that, although the proposals included in the CP represent a new step towards an organic regulation of heritage asset reporting, if these preliminary views are confronted with the reality of an emblematic context, as in the Italian case, much room for improvement remains regarding the definition, recognition, measurement and disclosure of such assets.

The originality of the paper lies in its contribution to overcoming the current controversial aspects of heritage assets reporting and the issuing of an accounting standard. In doing so, the authors also attempt to answer the call made by Anessi-Pessina et al. (2019) to investigate in detail an individual country experience to better understand the state of the art in national and international accounting standards on heritage assets.

Public heritage facilities – national parks, art galleries, museums and so on – are now required by professional accounting standards in Australia to be valued and included in government general purpose financial statements as assets. This study challenges the appropriateness of such an accounting treatment in relation to the SAC4 definition of assets and the purported usefulness of the information. Instead it is argued that these facilities are public goods, and that commercial accounting principles should not be applied to them. The article explains the nature and significance of public goods and how they differ from private goods. It explains why commercial accounting principles are irrelevant for public heritage facilities because their objectives are social rather than financial and why commercial valuations are irrelevant and unreliable if applied to them. Finally, it is contended that the facilities are assets held in trust for the nation by government and hence should not be included in its general purpose financial reports.

The purpose of this paper is to examine how the convergence of private and public sector accounting standards is affecting conceptual and practical issues relating to heritage. More specifically, the paper is intended to provide a better understanding of the state of the art in national and international accounting standards on heritage assets, and of the views influencing such standards.

A qualitative documentary analysis is carried out to explore the variety of existing positions and views on heritage, ranging from the scholarly literature, through potential stakeholders and users, to international and national standard setters.

The analysis shows that the path of convergence between public and private sector standards and practices is still problematic. After more than two decades of debate around the nature, definition, measurement, and reporting of heritage, these issues are far from settled.

In the light of calls for increased measurement and reporting of public sector “assets”, and specifically for the definition of standards to recognise heritage, the paper suggests the need to strongly reconsider whether the convergence between public and private sector standards is desirable, feasible and effective. As such, the risks of embracing simplified or hybrid forms of accounting and reporting for heritage should be more seriously assessed. While reporting on heritage is important, it is fundamental to keep it distinct from reporting on government’s regular operations, in order to appreciate its specific value, nature and features.

Looking at European national standards for heritage, the IPSASB’s proposals, and the reactions to the latter by relevant stakeholders, the paper provides a pluralistic view on the positions and experiences about heritage, contributing to the debate on the convergence between private and public sector accounting standards.

This book chapter intends to analyse a particular measurement basis, namely the ‘value in use’, regarding its definition and application in the public sector context. To this end, the current study assesses the development of a measurement practice in a particular jurisdiction, that is, Italy, compared with requirements in current International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSASs), in order to explore its suitability and practicability for a specific category of public sector assets, namely heritage assets.

In recent years, accounting for heritage assets has evolved but continuing the diversity in reporting practices remains problematic. Traditional cash-based budgets are still common in governmental accounting in some countries, but these ignore heritage assets as they are non-realisable and often do not generate revenue. Heritage assets do, however, incur cash outflows. The adoption of accrual accounting for recording heritage assets raises the technical issues of recognition and measurement of such assets, both in the balance sheet and income statements.

This chapter examines the financial reporting environment for heritage assets in New Zealand (NZ). The authors provide evidence on the reporting practices of heritage assets by five of NZ’s significant museums during the period 2011–2020, under IAS 16 and IPSAS 17 requirements. The authors analyse disclosures on heritage assets in the financial reports of these museums, including accounting policies, valuation and measurement, income statement impact, and related notes.

The findings suggest that, despite the existence of the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) (IAS 16) and International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS) (IPSAS 17) reporting standards during this period, a variety of reporting practices exist among NZ museums. For example, heritage assets are recognised either at fair value or historical cost on the balance sheet or not recognised in the financial statements at all. These findings suggest substantial non-uniformity in the actual measurement and reporting of heritage assets. They are of interest to policy-makers and regulators, particularly in countries that are currently considering adoption of IPSAS.

This paper aims to examine the conceptual arguments surrounding accounting for heritage assets and the resistance by some New Zealand museums to a mandatory valuing of their holdings.

Evidence was derived from museum annual reports, interviews and personal communications with representatives of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of New Zealand (ICANZ) and a range of New Zealand museums.

ICANZ's requirement that heritage assets be accounted for in a manner similar to other assets is shown as deriving from a managerialist rationality which, in espousing sector neutrality, assumes an unproblematic stance to the particular nature and circumstances of museums and their holdings. Resisting the imposition of the standard, New Zealand's regional museums evince an identity tied more strongly to notions of aesthetic, cultural and social value implicit in curatorship, than to a concern with the economic value of their holdings. Museum managers and accountants prefer to direct their attention to what they see as more vitally important tasks related to the conservation, preservation and maintenance of heritage assets, rather than to divert scarce funds to what they see as an academic exercise in accounting.

The paper points to some of the difficulties inherent in the application of a one‐size‐fits‐all application of an accounting standard to entities and assets differentiated in their purpose and essence.

This paper aims at offering a contribution which addresses one particular issue – heritage assets – as an exemplar of the challenges facing accounting practices in achieving transparency in government and public services.

After having identified three levels of transparency, a documentary analysis is used as the primary research method.

The investigation carried out reveals that the first level, or minimal level, of transparency is unlikely to be achieved for public organizations with heritage assets, mainly due to deep seated, pernicious problems of asset recognition and valuation.

This paper contributes to the debate on what constitutes “good public governance” by examining whether accounting can foster or enhance “good governance” through the lens of transparency.

Built heritage or historic assets (BHAs) constructed in the pre-nineteenth century in the UK are perceived to have certain characteristics which instill cultural significance in them and have seen them become valuable to the economy of the country. The heritage sector makes significant contributions to the UK economy through provision of tourist attractive sites, construction and servicing of heritage assets, heritage conservation, research, and commercial activities carried out within and around heritage assets. These benefits have seen them draw considerable interests from diverse stakeholders within and outside the heritage sector. Hence, a lot of attention is drawn toward restoration of such assets, from stakeholders of different interests, ranging from advocacies for no alteration to complete alteration of the heritage assets. As with construction projects, conflict of interests amongst stakeholders affect the outcome of restoration projects and the purpose of this paper is to examine the critical success factors (CSFs) for managing the stakeholders to achieve the projects’ objectives.

This paper examines the views and experiences of practitioners in the heritage sector who have been involved with BHA restoration projects. A total of 32 CSFs for stakeholder management, obtained through rigorous reviews of literature, were subjected to a severe scrutiny with eight restoration experts to determine the importance of the CSFs in restoration projects. The outcome of the exercise was a modified list of 20 CSFs which were further tested on 52 restoration practitioners in the UK using a structured questionnaire to determine the degree of importance of each of the CSFs in restoration projects and their relationships as perceived by the practitioners.

The results of the analyses performed on the data show that most of the CSFs were perceived by restoration practitioners as truly critical and vital for successful management of stakeholders in restoration of BHAs. The results also indicate that there is a strong consensus amongst over 50 percent of the practitioners on the rankings of the CSFs.

The identified CSFs could be used by the restoration practitioners as a “road map” for the development of appropriate solutions for successfully managing stakeholders associated with the promotion and BHAs restoration assets.

Although CSFs for stakeholder management in construction have been studied by many scholars, no specific research could be identified prior to this study to have been done in defining the CSFs for stakeholder management in restoration projects.

The purpose of this paper is to outline a conceptual model for adaptive reuse of heritage assets which has been produced in an effort to fill a gap in information, address the complexity of developing heritage assets and encourage more responsible and responsive treatment of heritage assets. The purpose of the model is to visually articulate the various elements that must be considered to successfully develop a heritage asset.

Based on six years of observation and industry practice, the model reflects a previously undocumented process for developing and adapting built heritage assets employed by many professionals across the UK. The model is further strengthened by drawing from other international theories, concepts, and principles.

The redevelopment of heritage assets is a “wicked problem”. The model established visually articulates current good practice in the field and provides a simplified version of the process.

Presently, there is insufficient contemporary literature which adequately describes or visualizes the complex adaptive reuse of built heritage in a coherent and holistic way. This model is the first to try to visually capture and communicate current good practice for widespread use. It is hoped that the documentation and dissemination of this process will help to advance creative problem solving, increase the appeal of developing heritage assets and elevate the quality of work produced.

Heritage assets (HAs) are important goods or properties that define a country’s culture, history, and identity. Public sector entities are the primary custodians of a nation’s heritage properties; however, many local museums and historic houses are managed by private not-for-profit (NFP) organisations that essentially act to conserve these heritage places.

Through a documentary analysis, this chapter aims to investigate the points of convergence and the differences between accounting policies for governmental heritage and private NFP organisations.

The study demonstrates that even private NFP entities present the same characteristics as public sector ones in the accounting of heritage goods and that there are certain accounting standards being equally applicable; therefore, the accounting policies for governmental heritage are in accordance with the accounting policies for NFP organisations such as museums, art galleries, charities, churches, for their heritage goods.