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.

A sustainability reporting framework must demonstrate that resources are fairly bought and used to support diverse life on earth within habitable ranges. The purpose of this paper is to propose a principle-based sustainability reporting framework that measures, audits and reports based on sustainability outcomes and impacts as part of the corporate reporting framework.

This paper draws on the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs) and targets for preparing a reporting framework. It uses Gaia Theory and the Theory of Distributive Justice constructs that align with sustainable development principles to delineate a reporting approach.

Frameworks that promote sustainability reporting have increasingly embraced UN SDGs but overly focus on performance promoting inter-firm comparisons. This framework introduces principle-based sustainability reporting where firms demonstrate their chosen contribution to sustainable development using 17 UN SDGs as goal posts.

This conceptual paper presents theoretical constructs that future research can empirically validate to enhance sustainability reporting.

This principle-based sustainability reporting framework is implementable for corporate reporting, where sustainability reporting integrates with the financial and economic intellectual capital reporting frameworks.

This framework highlights the importance of acquiring and using resources to distribute justice and fairness. It is a joint project between firms and stakeholders.

This framework promotes integrated thinking for firms to engage in principle-based sustainability reporting and provides a roadmap for sustainability reporting using the SDG Compass logic model.

Intangibles are the main value drivers of a firm. This consideration implies that it becomes more and more important/urgent to measure and report intellectual capital. The new reporting statement (intellectual capital report) is not yet commonly used by firms, but many, on a voluntary basis, already publish environmental, social and sustainability reports, which contain much information on intangibles. Starting from this point, the purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that it is possible to integrate the information contained in both reports in a single ad hoc integrated document, having both external and internal communication aims.

The paper addresses three research questions: whether the theoretical premises exist for the integration of the two different frameworks; which frameworks should be chosen as a starting point; and which features should have an integrated framework. Theoretical premises for integration have been found in the research‐based view (RBV) theory. To chose the social report and intellectual capital report (ICR) framework to use as starting points, the authors analyze the frameworks from the intellectual capital (IC) and corporate social responsibility (CSR) literature; then choose the frameworks (GRI3 and Meritum reports) founded on an evolved notion of, respectively, corporate responsibility and IC, which share the same features – the orientation towards stakeholders, the managerial approach, and the focus on intangible activities that a new integrated framework should respect.

Starting from the selected CSR and ICR frameworks, the authors planned and designed a new, ad hoc model of corporate communication, able to integrate the social and intangible dimensions in a single document, named the Intangible Global Report (IGR). The IGR framework is composed of five dimensions, three derived from the ICR (human capital, structural capital, relational capital) and two from the GRI report (environmental, social). The different aspects of each dimension are surveyed in terms of intangible resources, activities and impacts, measured by financial and non‐financial indicators.

The main originality of the paper consists in providing a general framework for firms to integrate all their intangible information in a single document – the IGR framework – focused on the firm's strategy, which allows the stakeholder to visualize all the firm's intangibles, how a company conducts its activities and the impacts that such activities have on the environmental, social and IC dimensions.

Substantial differences between company book values and market values indicate the presence of assets not recognised and measured in company balance‐sheets. Intellectual capital assets account for a substantial proportion of this discrepancy. At present, companies are not required to report on intellectual capital assets, which leaves the traditional accounting system ineffective for measuring the true impact of such intangibles. Regulations currently in place are analysed in this article. Prior research concerning intellectual capital is presented. Frameworks for intellectual capital are compared. Indicators used for the measurement of intellectual capital are examined. The research methodologies employed for collecting information about the use of intellectual capital accounts in companies are reviewed. Guidelines available to companies for reporting on intellectual capital are considered and also the efforts made towards developing an accounting standard for intellectual capital. Finally, current issues and policy implications of accounting for intellectual capital in the future are examined.

The paper seeks to explore the development of an intellectual capital flow statement based on a framework that harnesses contemporary research on intellectual capital.

Case studies of wireless technology companies based in Canada are adopted to examine the interrelationship between intellectual capital components with a resource‐based view as well as deficiencies in their current financial reporting with respect to intellectual capital. An intellectual capital flow statement is proposed in order to capture the necessary characteristics.

This study confirms the inter‐relationship between components of intellectual capital and business growth performance among the selected cases of wireless technology companies. It suggests an “add‐on” disclosure of intellectual capital flow that would enhance the usefulness and predictability of performance.

This study is based on case studies of six wireless technology companies and may not be generalisable to other technology‐based companies.

The paper suggests a disclosure method for intellectual capital that mitigates problems with information asymmetry in technology‐based companies while maintaining harmony with current financial reporting practice.

This paper integrates prior studies and concepts in intellectual capital, technology management and financial accounting theory, aiming to develop an integrated framework for the disclosure of intellectual capital.

The paper concerns the research problem of how to analyse the performance of a knowledge society as a whole, and in particular, of how to analyse national intellectual capital. The paper aims to build a conceptual foundation for national intellectual capital performance, and based on this, to construct a multidimensional measurement system for Finland and to investigate its usefulness.

The framework and measurement system of national intellectual capital performance is constructed on the basis of the intellectual capital and knowledge management research literature. The illustration of the measurement system is carried out using empirical data from various institutions.

The paper argues for the strategic, dialogic and societal measurement of national intellectual capital.

There was neither an exact purpose of measurement nor a detailed strategy for the knowledge society to aim at. Because of this, the measurement system serves as an illustrative example that provides a starting point for more in‐depth case studies on national intellectual capital.

This paper is targeted at policymakers and government officials concerned with questions related to national knowledge‐based development. The framework and measurement system constructed can serve as a basis for the strategic measurement of knowledge societies.

The paper shows how to apply the concept of national intellectual capital performance to analyse knowledge society. The approach proposed takes into account the strategic nature of national intellectual capital that has been ignored in earlier studies.

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 investigate the content, frequency and quality of intellectual capital voluntary disclosure (ICVD) and the changes that took place over two years (2005 and 2006) in a sample of 37 sustainability reports published by Italian listed companies.

The intellectual capital framework consists of three levels: “IC categories”, “IC items” and “IC indicators”, while content analysis was performed using a quality multidimensional scheme composed of three disclosure profiles, namely, time orientation, nature of information and type of information.

The findings evidence a high and increasing incidence over time of ICVD, with strong emphasis on human capital disclosure, which represents the most reported category, followed by relational and organisational capital. ICVD is mainly expressed in non‐financial, quantitative and non‐time‐specific terms with a low level of forward‐looking information.

This study is based on a small sample of sustainability reports; the content analysis process entails some subjective judgments.

From a firm perspective, sustainability reports can be used in synergy with annual reports and other public and private documents to provide IC information. From a user perspective, sustainability reports can be used to acquire IC information over and above information acquired from other documents.

Sustainability reports and ICVD quality have thus far been investigated only to a limited extent. The paper also discusses the potential of ICVD in sustainability reports from a user perspective.