Search results

This study reports the results of an empirical examination of Australian annual reporting of intellectual capital. The findings suggest that the development of a model for reporting intangibles is piecemeal and not widely spread. The outcomes of our exploratory investigation are threefold. First, the key components of intellectual capital are poorly understood, inadequately identified, inefficiently managed, and not reported within a consistent framework when reported at all. Second, the main areas of intellectual capital reporting focus on human resources; technology and intellectual property rights; and organisational and workplace structure. Third, even in an Australian enterprise thought of as “best practice” in this regard, a comprehensive management framework for intellectual capital is yet to be developed, especially for collecting and reporting intellectual capital formation. In conclusion, Australian companies do not compare favourably with several European firms in their ability to measure and report their intellectual capital in the annual report.

With the emergence of the basis of intellectual capital, competitive advantage was considered as the focus of competitive strategies, and the knowledge resulting from this approach became the basis for the development and strategic directions of companies in various fields of the company such as finance and accounting. The purpose of this study is sustainable intellectual capital reporting framework and evaluation of key examples in the context of capital market companies.

The methodology of this study was exploratory from the point of view of the developmental result and based on the type of objective and qualitative and quantitative basis was used to collect the data. The statistical population in the qualitative part was university experts and in the quantitative part financial managers of capital market companies. Data collection tools were interviews in the qualitative part and fuzzy scales and language comparison checklists in the quantitative part. Therefore, first through three stages of coding, the dimensions of the model were identified, and based on the fuzzy Delphi analysis, the reliability level was determined through the average between the first round and the second round of Delphi. Finally, through the default tests, the appropriate fuzzy model was first determined, and then hierarchical fuzzy analysis based on TODIM's approach was used to determine the most favorable axis of sustainable intellectual capital reporting.

The results in the qualitative part indicate the existence of 3 categories and 6 components and 39 conceptual themes in the form of a six-dimensional model. In the quantitative part, the results showed that by confirming the dimensions identified through fuzzy Delphi analysis, the most desirable axis of intellectual capital reporting is the component of technological capital reporting, which can play a more effective role in sustainable reporting.

This study, relying on the importance of the consequences of sustainable intellectual capital reporting, tries to evaluate the consequences of this field of financial reporting due to the lack of a coherent theoretical framework about capital market companies. In addition, the framework presented in this study promotes integrated thinking for firms to it would provide some level of incentive to those charged with governance concerning the voluntary compliance with the sustainable intellectual capital reporting framework.

To investigate, compare and document the magnitude and extent of intellectual capital disclosure to sustainability disclosure during a transition from a voluntary to mandated “comply or explain” sustainability reporting regime. And to empirically test if, during the regime transition period, changes in the magnitude (extent) of sustainability disclosure is a significant determinant of changes in the magnitude (extent) of intellectual capital disclosure.

Content analysis of 1,744 annual reports drawn from 436 Singapore listed firms spanning a four-year observation window (i.e. April 1, 2014 to March 31, 2018). The magnitude (number of sentences) and extent (number of items) of (1) intellectual capital disclosure measured using a 38-item index; (2) sustainability disclosure of a 105-item index; and (3) 15-item index to measure the magnitude and extent of joint sustainability/intellectual capital disclosure.

The average magnitude and extent of sustainability and the joint sustainability/intellectual capital disclosure increased whilst the average magnitude and extent of intellectual capital disclosure increased when regulatory discussion of a change to mandated sustainability reporting emerged. However, in the annual period the mandated sustainability reporting became effective while the average magnitude and extent of intellectual capital disclosure declined. Regression tests indicate a significant (insignificant) association between the change in the magnitude (extent) of sustainability disclosure and intellectual capital disclosure.

From a research perspective, the analysis implies researchers investigating the consequences of mandated sustainability disclosure should consider impact on alternative non-financial disclosure themes and develop theoretical frameworks to derive why and how management may shift non-financial reporting strategies and practices.

For regulators, findings suggest there may be a need to weigh spillover costs of reductions in transparency related to intellectual capital. For investors, declines in the magnitude and extent of intellectual capital disclosure following a transition to mandated sustainability reporting may limit future firm valuation particularly of heavy intangible asset-oriented firms.

Initial study empirically investigating the impact of the transition from a voluntary to mandated sustainability reporting regime on the magnitude and extent of intellectual capital disclosure.

This paper has two purposes: to identify and explain the major forces that are causing the increasing need for operational reporting and intellectual capital (IC) reporting for European companies; and to identify the necessary and sufficient conditions for operational and intellectual capital reporting if such reporting is to be meaningful for information users.

The approach for this paper has been to examine relevant papers, reports, guidelines, compendiums, annual reports, opinions, submissions and legislation.

Eight determining forces are identified that make the basis of the case for the provision of operating and IC information: the long‐standing global dominance and growth of the US economy; the emergence of business models other than the value chain (especially the emergence of network businesses); the changing nature of stock exchanges; the influence of different investment fund types (mutual, pension and hedge funds); the roles of buy‐side and sell‐side analysts; global and European investment index development; rating agency activity; and financial reporting and corporate governance regime development.

The eight forces are interdependent and immutable. Comprehensive operational and IC reporting are unavoidable. Accordingly, the authors propose that the necessary and sufficient conditions for adequate enterprise information reporting are: a legal requirement for mandatory operational and IC reporting and attendant regulatory framework(s) where the legal framework is based on the concept of neglect; key operating and IC resource status and activity performance definitions and metrics that reflect the enterprise's underlying business model(s); and (3) a mapping of the capitalized operational and IC investments that are by definition normally expensed to the financial report accounts.

The authors believe that no one has previously formally proposed a mandatory operational and IC reporting requirement; a legal reference frame of reference based on the legal concept of neglect; standard definitions for operational and IC performance metrics; a reference framework for information quality that is, inter alia, based on the consistency, comparability and comprehensiveness of reported metrics; and the requirement to map all capitalized IC resources back to the financial reports of the company.

The purpose of this paper is to examine intellectual capital reporting patterns of New Zealand companies over a longitudinal period, comparing knowledge intensive companies with traditional product-based companies.

Content analysis was used to examine the intellectual capital reporting of five knowledge intensive companies and five traditional product-based companies listed on the New Zealand Stock Exchange during 2004-2010.

The longitudinal study found that although there was an increase in intellectual capital reporting from 2004 to 2010, there was no strong pattern reflecting a marked increase in reporting over the time period. The findings also show that the level of intellectual capital reporting cannot be determined by the type of organisation. Further, the majority of intellectual capital reporting was found to be in discursive form and only a small percentage of reporting conveyed negative news.

The results of this study are limited by the small sample size overall and the small number of companies in both the knowledge intensive and the traditional product-based groups.

The research suggests areas that could be considered by regulatory bodies and policy makers when developing more informed intellectual capital reporting guidelines.

This research provides a basis for further research, debate and action regarding intellectual capital in both academia and practice. Longitudinal intellectual capital reporting research and distinctions between knowledge intensive and traditional product-based companies have seldom been undertaken. Consequently little is known about the changes in intellectual capital reporting over time or the differences in intellectual capital reporting, if any, between type of company.

Accounting for intellectual capital is increasingly recognised to be one of the most fascinating and potentially far‐reaching challenges facing the accountancy profession. A growing literature, encompassing theoretical, empirical and practical elements, is currently emerging as researchers and practitioners endeavour to account for the hidden value that the intellectual capital concept denotes, and its pivotal role in the value creation process. To date, many of the most instructive advances have emanated from Scandinavia, reflecting these societies' sustained interest in necessity of accounting for the worth of employees, arguably the principal progenitor of intellectual capital accounting. Reports from a number of Australian, Canadian and European enquiries have added to the momentum of the intellectual capital accounting project, whilst affirming its links with contemporary debates about the information society, intangibles, knowledge management and business reporting. This paper reports and discusses some of the findings of a recently completed field study of intellectual capital accounting developments in the UK, funded by one of the professional accountancy bodies. Drawing on a series of semi‐structured interviews, it documents how senior managers in six knowledge‐based organisations view intellectual capital and related developments, their evolving attempts to respond to the challenges these present, and their progress in measuring and reporting their performance in these areas.

In recent years there has been increasing focus on the importance of intellectual capital disclosure. The major resources of the football industry are human ‐ the players (as well as coaches and management) and supporters, yet the traditional accounting framework is largely ineffective in capturing these ‘hidden’ values. This paper reviews research on the quality and extent to which 19 listed professional English football clubs are reporting intellectual capital in their annual reports for the 2002 period. A disclosure index was developed and applied, giving scores for categories of disclosure and for the football clubs. The research findings suggest that components of intellectual capital were poorly reported by listed professional football clubs. External capital reporting was the highest scoring category, followed by human capital. However internal capital reporting scored the lowest. The research findings indicated a positive significant correlation between the size of clubs, club performance and their overall intellectual capital disclosure, in line with previous research in different industries. In conclusion, the importance of intellectual capital is recognized in the football industry as evidenced by the quality and quantity of IC disclosure by some clubs. However, the variability in reporting of different components of intellectual capital suggests that there is considerable room for improvement if the key resources of the football industry are to be truly reflected in the accounting system.

The rise of the “new economy”, one principally driven by information and knowledge, is attributed to the increased prominence of intellectual capital (IC) as a business and research topic. Intellectual capital is implicated in recent economic, managerial, technological, and sociological developments in a manner previously unknown and largely unforeseen. Whether these developments are viewed through the filter of the information society, the knowledge‐based economy, the network society, or innovation, there is much to support the assertion that IC is instrumental in the determination of enterprise value and national economic performance. First, we seek to review some of the most significant extant literature on intellectual capital and its developed path. The emphasis is on important theoretical and empirical contributions relating to the measurement and reporting of intellectual capital. The second part of this paper identifies possible future research issues into the nature, impact and value of intellectual management and reporting.

This paper presents findings from an investigation of intellectual capital measurement, reporting and management in the South African mining industry. The research methodology employs a combination of content analysis of annual reports for the 20 largest listed companies in South Africa, combined with interviews with senior individuals in mining companies. Data is analysed in accordance with a selected intellectual capital framework consisting of 24 indicators across the three categories of internal, external and human capital. Results show that mining companies tend to report on fewer intellectual capital attributes than other companies and tend to focus more on external attributes such as business collaborations and favourable contracts. Results show that mining companies rate intellectual capital highly, but appear to be lacking in the measurement and reporting of intellectual capital. From these findings it is concluded that mining companies value intellectual capital but lack the appropriate systems and structures to manage intellectual capital meaningfully.

In 1994 the Swedish insurance company Skandia published the first intellectual capital report. Following these steps, other European companies decided to report on intangible resources. The Indian company, Reliance Industries Limited, published the first Indian intellectual capital report in 1997. Later other Indian companies also started to build and publish this new type of corporate report. Now the question is: are there any differences between Indian intellectual capital reports and European intellectual capital reports? If so, what ideas can be derived from these differences?

A case study was carried out to analyse how Indian firms build the intellectual capital report. In particular three leading Indian firms were selected: Reliance Industries Limited, Balrampur Chini Mills, and Shree Cement Limited.

The paper offers insights into how leading Indian firms measure and report knowledge‐based resources. The Indian intellectual capital report does not focus on the business model, values, mission and vision and/or knowledge management issues as in the case of European intellectual capital reports. It presents a “narrative” style. This is a major distinctive feature of Indian reports.

The case study may help other companies to build the intellectual capital report. As the paper also provides a comparative view of Indian and European intellectual capital reports, managers can decide which approach better fits their firms.

Most papers on intellectual capital measuring and reporting focus on European firms. However, this pioneer paper offers some insights into the reporting of intellectual capital in Indian companies.