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 distinction between discussing human capital (HC) and its actual measurement is the presence of indices and equations to substantiate the belief of measuring intangibles. The chapter makes a concise mention of research precedents, deriving leads for the foundation of HC. The chapter aims to provide clarity on the concept of HC measurement and bring to light the tools that can confer tangibility to intangibles. It argues that the measurement of HC is an achievable idea; furthering that a systematic review into the inter-disciplinary studies can offer viable solutions to the challenge of measuring intangibles. The chapter while discussing the contention makes a vivid mention of Bhutan’s gross national happiness (GNH), Happiness Seismograph, Cobb–Douglas model and others to make an impression on the minds of the reader.

Integrating interdisciplinary studies with Human Capital Management Accounting (HCMA) refers to the dynamics of organized interdisciplinary action that are transversal or cross-cutting. This approach requires the mastery of a certain number of technical skills and disciplines, as well as the capacity to use them in a process to solve problems of financial performance. This is accomplished through the specific interaction tasks that are performed by each management function and operational unit, which act in real time with others, in the same direction as an organizational team, using a selected risk appetite threshold base.

Putting business fields side by side, (i.e., business disciplines silos, as is normally the case in MBA programs), is not enough to create the transversal interaction dynamic needed for firms to achieve expected financial performance goals. As a result, few graduates today have the cross-cutting or vertical skills required to act, in real time, from their workstation in accordance with the pyramid shape of the organization chart in order to create value.

This chapter presents the results of the interface established by a faculty member in the Accounting Department of the University of San Francisco with a “seasoned leader in the FinTech industry.” It proposes a single portal for employers and HRMs to which the continuing education services of professional training associations, executive education departments of colleges, and MBA schools and universities, can connect to issue the HCMA certificate supplementing their training offerings focused on “Leadership Development”.

Accounting is part of a cosmology, even an anthropology, which goes beyond the simple input/output operation. This is why its object is in the deepest sense a political term: accounting reports on and informs the relations that a society creates. As the true working heart of a company and of the State, it constitutes, however, a kind of a black box, the design of which would be reserved for certain specialists claiming to be of a scientific neutrality that conceals very political choices. From a normative point of view, accounting standardisation is an instrument of corporate or state governance insofar as it accounts for what is valued: as such, it reflects what matters in a society, not only in the strictly economic sense but also more generally in the social and political sense. As far as the company is concerned, we can conceive of it as an entity owned by the people who work there while holding a mandate of the company as a whole as long as its activity fits into the horizon it sets out. In this sense, it aims to maintain the capital (human, natural and financial) that constitutes it and to meet social needs. As for the State, re-envisioned from the perspective of the common, it becomes the object of institutions thoroughly invested by citizen control at all levels, from a perspective of complete federalism in which political and economic needs are coordinated under the principle of subsidiarity.

This chapter expands the existing literature by examining voluntary intellectual capital disclosure provided by listed Romanian companies in 2010 annual reports.

The chapter aims to determine the extent of intellectual capital disclosure within Romanian listed companies. Within this chapter we have conducted a content analysis using the annual reports of 71 companies listed on Bucharest Stock Exchange (BSE), main market (Bursa de Valori Bucure_ti – BVB). The intellectual capital framework developed by Sveiby in 1997 was used in our analysis and the frequency of disclosure was used as the measure of disclosure.

The results show that the key components of intellectual capital are relatively poorly reported by Romanian listed companies. The main areas of intellectual capital disclosure focus firstly on structural capital, then on relational capital and at the end on human capital.

The existence of information related to intellectual capital is used as the measure of the level of intellectual capital disclosure. Also, our exploratory investigation concerns only one fiscal year.

According to the authors’ knowledge the present chapter is a pioneering study developed at national level which highlights the intellectual capital disclosure practices of Romanian listed companies by examining their 2010 annual reports. The chapter highlights new insights of the level of intellectual capital disclosure within companies which operates in small capital market.

Much like “Yeti,” the Abominable Snowman whose footprints are everywhere but itself nowhere to be seen, unfounded assertions of human capital as valuable contributors to strategic success continue to proliferate. Many of these treatments are nonbinding, nonmeasureable, idiosyncratic, tautological, and therefore nearly impossible to use for any comparative market valuation. In this chapter, we selectively review the interdisciplinary literature on exemplars of human-derived capital. We systematically examine specific epistemological strengths, weaknesses, and gaps in recognized theories, measures, and practices. In particular, a multidisciplinary, multilevel, connectionist point of view is suggested. We present the case for an evidence-based classification system of human-derived capital at the micro-, meso-, and macro-levels. Our framework goes beyond static stock models by emphasizing dynamic human-derived capital flows, as well as their within-level and cross-level linkages, all within the context of a modern society that increasingly is networked, fluent with technology, and prodigious with social media.

During recent years, financial economists have made a significant contribution to the rapid development of a vibrant and growing literature on organization structure and corporate governance. In reviewing the development of this literature, it becomes easy to see how the seminal contributions of Ronald Coase (awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1991) have become the cornerstone of a new institutional economics. In particular, researchers following in Coase’s footsteps have clarified the conditions under which voluntary contracts between private agents can resolve a wide variety of so-called “agency problems.” More than just representing an important discovery of the significance of transaction costs and property rights for the institutional structure and functioning of the economy, Coase’s work has become an important foundation for the theory of contracts and for the whole field of “organization economics.”

Previously disregarded factors are now included in development theory and practice. A narrow understanding of capital has had profound effects on development as well as on tourism policy and governance. In this framework, purpose-designed tourism for development has been the exception. Contemporary ideas of other forms of capital playing a key role in a broader concept of development are examined, specifically the central function of human and social-institutional capital. Human capital is seen in the light of capabilities, attributes, and knowledge possessed by individuals. Social-institutional capital may empower individuals as it refers to the value of trust and cooperation deriving from formal and informal sets of behavioral rules. This chapter clarifies the foundations of tourism as an instrument for development if tourism policy and governance are designed and implemented within an adequate framework.