Search results

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.

Analyze the importance of sustainable innovation strategy applied in manufacturing companies in Indonesia which affects the company's financial performance through several mediating variables.

The population in this research was medium and large manufacturing company business units in East Java. Business units are part of a company considered as the profit center. The business unit as the unit of analysis in this research is part of the organization that: (1) is responsible for the production and marketing of a product or set of products; (2) is formed by product type; (3) has its own competitors which are different from competitors of other business units or divisions within a parent company; (4) has a manager who is responsible and has authority over the planning and implementation of strategies to achieve the specified profit target.

Innovation strategy has a significant effect on financial performance. Human capital does not significantly mediate the relationship between innovation strategy and financial performance. Capital performance and internal performance do not mediate the relationship between innovation strategy and financial performance. Management accounting information system does not mediate the relationship between innovation strategy and financial performance. Internal process performance mediates the relationship between innovation strategy and financial performance. Management accounting information system and internal process performance mediate the relationship between innovation strategy and financial performance.

The difference in findings confirms that this research needs to be conducted. On the other hand, there is no research that has comprehensively tested the mediating effects of Human Capital and Management Accounting Information System in the relationship between Innovation Strategy and Internal Process Performance and the Impact on Corporate Financial Performance. The originality of this research can be seen in the use of contingency theory which narrows the gap between the industrial organization (I/O) paradigm and the resource-based view (RBV) regarding competitive advantage and performance. Specifically, this research introduces innovation strategy, human capital, management accounting information system, and internal business process performance as the contingency factors that affect financial performance. Second, empirically, this research tries to reduce the gap in empirical research by offering new research model and new research establishment at the level of strategic business units (SBU) in manufacturing companies in East Java. This research is expected to be useful for policy decision making, especially for managers who want to improve strategic business unit's financial performance.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss a framework of accounting theoretical bases that could promote research into little understood areas of human capital accounting.

The possible forces that hinder greater disclosure of human capital‐based information are analyzed by reviewing several theoretical viewpoints that offer a framework of different possible reasons for the low frequency of human capital‐based disclosures.

The paper explores several possible reasons for the reluctance of firms to disclose greater amounts of human capital‐based information, from the perspective of relevant theoretical bases. The predominant reasons may differ in different circumstances, industries and environments.

The paper explores theoretical bases that explain the barriers to widespread reporting of human capital‐based information. The theoretical bases discussed are not empirically validated.

The validation of the theoretical bases explored in this study, and the possible uncovering of new bases in the future through empirical studies, will enable academics, policy makers and accounting standard setters to better understand the reasons for the limited disclosures of human capital‐based information by listed firms to capital markets. This will help in the promulgation of widely accepted accounting standards for the disclosure of human capital‐based information, which address and overcome the forces that currently hinder the reporting of human capital‐based information.

This is the first paper that explores a framework of several pertinent theoretical viewpoints that specifically address the non‐disclosures of human capital‐based information to capital markets.

Progress in human resources accounting must continue to find a clear constructive definition of terms pertaining to human capital and human assets. The present paper is comprised of considerations leading to the proposal of more general definitions of capital that involve human capital. As a complement to Fisher's concept of capital measurement, the present definition explains capital based on the capitalization process. Capitalization should be viewed as an essential attribute of capital. Human resources accounting (HRA) can benefit from improvements in the definition of certain terms related to human capital. Of particular importance is a proposal of a more general definition of capital. The definition leads to an alternative measure,which is more useful in the HRA field than the Lev‐Schwartz model. The proposed measure compliments Fisher's concept of capital measurement and utilizes a compound interest approach. Capital is perceived as a value of economic means capitalized in physical and human resources. The rate of capitalization is determined through natural and social conditions of the environment. The mode of capital measurement results from the above definitions. Moreover, the measure of human capital appears as a generalization of the historical cost concept. The valuation model of human capital involves capitalized costs of living, costs of professional education and value of experience measured by a slightly modified learning curve. Having human capital redefined and measured in these terms, we can introduce human resources into the balance sheet using a set of relevant journal entries.

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.

This paper aims to analyse two competing approaches to accounting for a firm's investment in staff‐training activities: the accounting and labour economics approach (which argues that no asset should be recognized from training activity); and the human resources management approach (which advocates recognition of an asset).

A case study analysis was conducted in two large Portuguese companies where human capital is said to be a critical factor of firm success. The authors used document analysis and interviews to help understand the training phenomenon from a company's point of view. This meant knowing of motivations, training programme curricula, training practices and expected benefits of training.

The paper identifies and defines two situations concerning a firm's investment in human capital training: one, where no asset (value) is generated; and the other, where the accounting definition of an asset, requiring value generation, is satisfied.

Case studies possess the strength of specific instance detail and interpretation, and the ostensible weakness of interpretation of a small sample. But such research can provide for a reframing of conceptual perspectives. They can stimulate additional efforts to improve accounting and financial reporting.

A guideline system for firm investment in training was developed. This system allows different accounting treatments of a firm's investment in training activity. It proceeds on the basis of perceptions of whether training activity undertaken by a firm generates, or does not generate, value.

This paper provides a much‐needed case‐based empirical analysis of accounting and human capital arguments, and asset recognition arguments. It clarifies the situations in which an asset should be regarded as being generated by training expenditure.

The purpose of this research is to deal with the human capital disclosure issue of present accounting systems. Many companies nowadays derive their competitive advantages mainly from human capital. However, under generally accepted accounting principles, all human‐related expenditures are treated as expenses, which are deductions of revenues, thus misleading decision‐makers into inappropriate judgments. This paper provides an alternative way of measurement and disclosure of human capital items in financial statements. The paper defines and classifies the human capital of a company in line with a theoretical framework provided by the authors, sorts out company's human capital investments according to cost development stages in human resources, isolates human capital from expenses and finally suggests disclosure in financial statements.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the differing perceptions or conceptualizations that have contributed to prevailing views held by accountants on the measurement and reporting of human resources.

The study provides an analysis of extant literature and presents a theoretical framework on the relationship between HR, intellectual capital and goodwill.

The lack of traction in the progress of accounting for people is due to several factors including tension between employees and management, the demands of internal and external stakeholders, and the historic roots of accounting for labour.

The paper provides suggestions as to how the debate regarding the valuing and reporting of human resources may be rekindled.

This study highlights the historical context for the lack of traction in the area of accounting for people, and the relatively recent development of the Intellectual Capital Statement as a partial but positive development in the area.

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.

The paper sets out to identify the key role that Jan‐Erik Grojer's work on human resource costing and accounting played in linking initial developments in accounting for people with the more recent advances associated with the emergence of the intellectual capital concept.

The paper is in the form of an essay that briefly considers the history of approaches to the challenge of accounting for people.

The recent developments associated with intellectual capital highlight the importance and value of adopting a rather wider conception of accounting for people.

The paper provides a provocative introduction to the topic of accounting for people and as such may be of value to both newcomers to the field and those who are simply intrigued by the idea itself.