Search results

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.

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.

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.

The purpose of this article is to analyze intellectual capital (IC) measurement, management, and reporting practices at organizational level, with the aim to address a relevant research question: are IC reports used as accountability or as image-building tools? The article presents a single in-depth case study of an Italian nonprofit organization (NPO) which has been measuring and reporting its IC for several years. The research project was conducted using an interpretative approach, by analyzing organizational IC reports in the light of a framework, derived from corporate social responsibility (CSR) and IC literature, able to provide researchers with useful insights to interpret the role played by IC report in the investigated organization. The lenses provided by the designed framework give researchers the opportunity to offer a skillful interpretation of the information provided by the IC report. From the analysis, it results that the investigated NPO use IC report more as a managerial rather than an accountability tool. Even though the use of a single case study provides in-depth and rich data, it also limits the generalizability of the observations to other companies. Moreover, the results obtained can be influenced by the model built and adopted to address the research question. The findings can support companies to enable IC reporting practices and readers to understand the orientation of the companies towards a reputation or an accountability approach by reading the IC report using the research model. The article fills a gap in the research of voluntary disclosure of NPOs from a different approach (i.e., to analyze IC reports to make evident the approach followed in disclosing IC information). So doing, the article contributes to narrowing the gap between IC theory and practice and offers new insights on the reasons why NPOs disclose IC.

The purpose of the paper was to examine whether, and in what way, managers perceive that the level and shape of intellectual capital (IC) within firms influences management accounting practice, specifically, performance measurement, planning and control, capital budgeting, and risk management. It also explores whether such firms are better able to respond to unanticipated economic and market changes and achieve relatively higher performance within their sector.

The paper is based on the results of a study conducted in Malaysia through a questionnaire survey in 119 large companies with varying levels of IC and selected interviews with both accounting and non‐accounting executives in a subset of them.

The findings in the paper suggest some evolution in management accounting practices for firms investing heavily in IC. The findings are discussed and further explored through interviews in some of the firms analysed.

The limitations of survey research in this paper are acknowledged, however these are ameliorated by confirmatory insights from the interviews. Further research could be carried out using more extensive case studies in companies, perhaps longitudinally, or undertaken using sector focused surveys.

It is important to show in the paper that management accounting systems reflect the strategic orientation of the companies concerned. Where a greater focus on intangibles and intellectual capital occurs it may require a different emphasis on management accounting practices compared to companies where they do not feature strongly. It is important that management recognise and act on this in order to improve corporate performance.

The paper shows that it is widely recognised that (IC), whether in the form of knowledge, experience, professional skill, good relationships, or technological capacity is a major source of corporate competitive advantage. Whilst the literature places considerable attention on the valuation, measurement and reporting of IC for external reporting purposes, far less attention has so far been given to the implications of IC for managerial accounting practice. This paper addresses this omission.

The measurement and reporting of intellectual capital has recently attracted a growing interest from accounting researchers, promoting a lively and far‐reaching debate. Two related issues have informed this debate. It is possible to identify these issues as exemplifying financial reporting and management accounting perspectives on the emergence of intellectual capital. Provides a commentary on the progress of the debate to date, while also attempting to contextualise some of the issues it entails in both earlier and wider debates. In an effort to progress the project of accounting for intellectual capital, suggests the adoption of a critical accounting perspective. This would entail exploring the possibilities of intellectual capital providing its own accounts, rather than remaining imprisoned within accounts devised by others.

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.

In the past decade, intellectual capital (IC) measurement and reporting have been feeding scientific debate; however, only few studies address these issues together. The present research aims to provide an integrated view of the topics covered by the existing literature and to highlight the emerging research trends and set the agenda for future research.

This study develops a structured literature review (SLR) of the extant research concerned with IC measurement and reporting, using a comprehensive sample of 1,021 articles extracted from the Scopus database.

The findings of the SLR show that the existing literature focuses on seven research areas: IC and public sector; IC university and education; IC evaluation method; internal and external IC disclosure; IC and CSR; management of IC in organizations; other. Overall, findings indicate that IC measurement and reporting are highly researched topics that continue to attract the interests of scholars. Finally, the SLR analysis has allowed outlining a future research agenda, with particular reference to the IC evaluation method and internal and external IC disclosure research areas.

The main limitation of this research lies in the manual screening of relevant studies, which entails some degree of subjectivity. Furthermore, another limitation research could be considered the use of a single database (Scopus).

The present study brings potential contributions for scholars and practitioners. From a scholarly perspective, the paper provides a systematization of scientific contributions that have dealt with IC measurement and reporting. In particular, it contributes to the scholarly debate bringing into focus various IC measurement and reporting issues in the landscape of private and public organizations. Referring to practical implications, our research supports the strategic use of IC measurement and reporting as a key lever for improving the management of firms. Using an analytical framework that combines insights from the agency, stakeholder and legitimacy theories, this study highlights that IC reporting activity should be used strategically as a means to engage with all firm's stakeholders, in particular with a view to reducing information asymmetry and improving firm reputation.