Search results

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the need to establish linkages between tourism, intangible cultural heritage and creativity in Egypt and also diversifying tourism through creativity; and to analyze and explain the impact of intangible cultural heritage on tourism experience in Egypt and the opportunities to generate added value from integrating tourism and creativity. It also suggests some practical steps for developing intangible cultural heritage-based tourism models in Egypt.

The paper proposes a conceptual framework for integrating intangible cultural heritage with tourism in Egypt and its impact on tourism experience. To apply this framework, a case study was conducted focused on the tourism experience derived from intangible cultural heritage in Alexandria. The authors collected primary data by directly observing and experiencing tourism in Egypt, providing valuable firsthand experiential data. These observations offered insights into the practical aspects of intangible cultural heritage-based tourism in Egypt. In addition, secondary data sources such as academic research papers, reports and publications related to tourism and intangible cultural heritage experiences were utilized to support and complement the primary data.

Findings suggest the need for a different approach in intangible heritage based tourism promotion and consumption, an approach that may differ from the conventional and typical considerations in cultural tourism planning and management. In addition, findings emphasized that tourism-based intangible heritage in Egypt can be a constructive platform and sustainable tool to promote the country’s rich culture and traditions while providing employment opportunities for the local population.

This study provides an exploratory overview of integrating intangible heritage with tourism in Egypt, through exploring Egypt’s intangible heritage and proposing a framework of its inclusion, in order to create an intangible cultural heritage tourism experience. However, the proposed framework and packages should be analyzed and examined on the ground through the heritage, administrative, social and tourist aspects of the destination, to assess the viability of the study.

The practical implications of this study should be addressed to the decision makers working on management action plans in tourist destinations in Egypt, such as site mangers as well as tour operators. It could contribute to adopting a new approach in developing and implementing a mutually beneficial partnership between intangible heritage and tourism in Egypt.

It is the first study that presents practical steps to develop new models for linking intangible heritage to tourism in Egypt.

The purpose of this paper is to present valuation, economic, and corporate management aspects related to the design and implementation of intangible asset valuation in common business language.

The methodology or approach to identifying or naming intangible assets within the business environment was used.

The purpose of intangible asset valuation is to understand what the intangible asset is and how it affects the bottom line of the business. Understanding the reason for the intangible asset valuation, whether for tax purposes, corporate planning, or dispute resolution, is paramount when considering the nature of the intangible asset to be valued.

Intangible assets are generally not included in active company management. Many companies do not recognize or investigate ways to maximize the income to be derived from intangible assets or other benefits of a centralized intangible asset management program. Fundamental to valuing intangible assets are their identification and subsequent representation. As presented in this paper, the three categories of intelligence identify intangible assets by the business value drivers that comprise them.

An overwhelming literature on intangibles has been published over past three decades. Based on the evidence provided by recent research studies and the experiences of companies and policy makers this article provides a summary of our current knowledge on intangibles and suggests some directions for future research and for the improvement of management and reporting practices, as well as of policy making.

The aim of this research is to analyse the impact of intangible assets on firm’s sporting and financial performance.

The hypothesis of this research was developed through grounded theory and previous findings from the literature. This study adopted multiple regression method to analyse the impact of intangible assets on sporting and financial performance.

The findings indicate that intangible assets affect both sporting and financial performance. This is consistent with resource‐based view theory, which maintains that firms achieve a sustainable competitive advantage and superior financial performance by owning or controlling intangible strategic assets. By intangible strategic assets, it is meant the specific and valuable capability that belongs to the organisation.

The finding of this study is limited to a sample of UK listed soccer corporations. A possible opportunity of future research is to replicate the current study with other corporations and explore alternative measures of intangible assets.

The main innovation contained in this study relies on the measure of intangible assets. This paper employed players’ registration costs as a measure of intangible assets. To my knowledge this has not been addressed before in finance and accounting research.

Intangible assets have grown in size and importance to individual firms and to the economy as a whole. Many have examined and written about ways to value the intangible assets of firms and the overall economy. Professor Baruch Lev of New York University has developed an approach to measure intangibles performance for any company, or division of a company, that uses GAAP financial reporting and that has publicly traded equity. Professor Lev has also established how intangibles performance is linked to stock returns. The collaborative research of the co‐authors has extended this linkage by identifying certain management practices as drivers of intangibles performance. The culmination of this work is a breakthrough – for the first time, specific management practices can be linked to stock returns.

This study investigates the adequacy of existing intangible asset models and defines and codifies common principal valuation drivers of intangible assets for use in enterprise balanced scorecard valuation practices of information technology (IT) firms.

Existing intangible asset balance scorecard valuation models and value chain models are evaluated to extract their value components and align them with performance‐based activities of the business enterprise to define a common taxonomy of value drivers of intangible assets. Chief executive officers (CEOs), chief finance officers (CFOs) and “other executives” of IT firms validate the taxonomy.

IT firms that use a standard and consistent taxonomy of intangible assets could increase its ability to identify and account for more intangible assets for measurement and valuation.

This study is limited to the Washington Metropolitan Area, is a single sector study (IT firms), the target audience is CEOs and CFOs; and emphasis is on the Score Card (SC) type model as classified by Sveiby. Future studies could expand the geographic circumference, the scope to other industry sectors, and the target audience to other decision makers

The framework of intangible valuation areas (FIVA) allows a business to identify and link performance measurements/indicators to its intangible value drivers. It supports the capture and subsequent evaluation of leading and lagging indicators in the achievement of a knowledge management strategy.

FIVA provides a framework to have command of and access to effective utilization of business resources and knowledge, to develop, sustain and enhance its mission effectiveness and/or competitive advantage.

The relevance of intangible assets for financial performance is getting more widely accepted. There is also some convergence about the conceptual structure of intangibles. What has not been underlined enough yet is the synergic nature of different types of intangibles. In this paper, it is argued, in the light of a case study of nine Finnish companies, that the intangibles form a value chain of generative and commercially exploitable intangibles. Furthermore, it is argued that each company at each time has an emphasis on a certain type of intangibles, sometimes even neglecting others. The paper seeks to propose that it is important to identify the primary intangibles and their current relationships with other forms of intangibles. The management of intangibles is hence a matter of integration and delicate balance.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the needs to assess the value and impact of the intangible resources and efforts produced by the library.

A literature overview is used to provide the background of intangibles assessment and its application in libraries, with examples of library intangible resources used and efforts produced, and reviews the possible benefits for libraries in adopting and effectively utilizing intangible assessment.

The library has multiple intangible assets, resources, and efforts it produces that are not generally accounted for in annual assessments, accountability reporting, or budget planning. Learning to account for and include the intangibles used/produced by the library will increase the library's capability to address accountability concerns of stakeholders, more effectively align the library's resources with strategic responses, and more effectively utilize intangible assets and resources.

Increased reporting and usage of intangible resources/products by the library could provide library administrators with a proactive means of increasing the effectiveness and scope of library assessment, valuation, and resource planning and usage.

According to several authors 50 per cent of mergers and acquisitions (M&A) operations destroy value. The aim of this paper is to study the reasons why it happens and to seek to reveal that intangible assets, which are increasingly important in today's economy, must be better assessed during the due diligence phase.

The authors present a part of the French intangible assets measurement approach, which has been published by the French Intangible Assets Observatory. The methodology proposes an extended balance sheet which is an interesting addition to the IAS‐IFRS intangible standard. It identifies 12 classes of intangible assets including human capital and customer capital.

The paper proposes a due diligence approach, using the French methodology and applies it to the insurance sector.

This paper is not an academic paper. However, a significant research program is now underway in France. Academic publications are expected to be submitted.

The practice of intangible due diligence is a key issue in today's increasingly intangible economy. This practice is on the verge of a very strong development.

The paper presents a systemic approach to intangible assets. It answers a key question: what are the main assets that are necessary to start and continue a process of value creation? Accounting only recognizes the intangible assets that are not overly volatile, for prudential reasons. But even if customers or teams are “too intangible” for accountants, they are required to generate cash flows. If they are not evaluated, the process of wealth creation is not under control. This is crucial in M&A.

In 2000, Cañibano et al. published a literature review entitled “Accounting for Intangibles: A Literature Review”. This paper revisits the conclusions drawn in that paper. We also discuss the intervening developments in scholarly research, standard setting and practice over the past 20+ years to outline the future challenges for research into accounting for intangibles.

We conducted a literature review to identify past developments and link the findings to current accounting standard-setting developments to inform our view of the future.

Current intangibles accounting practices are conservative and unlikely to change. Accounting standard setters are more interested in how companies report and disclose the value of intangibles rather than changing how they are determined. Standard setters are also interested in accounting for new forms of digital assets and reporting economic, social, governance and sustainability issues and how these link to financial outcomes. The IFRS has released complementary sustainability accounting standards for disclosing value creation in response to the latter. Therefore, the topic of intangibles stretches beyond merely how intangibles create value but how they are also part of a firm’s overall risk and value creation profile.

There is much room academically, practically, and from a social perspective to influence the future of accounting for intangibles. Accounting standard setters and alternative standards, such as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and European Union non-financial and sustainability reporting directives, are competing complementary initiatives.

Our results reveal a window of opportunity for accounting scholars to research and influence how intangibles and other non-financial and sustainability accounting will progress based on current developments.