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 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.

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.

This paper is focused on studying homogenous structure for tangible and intangible measurement systems. The aim is (1) to develop a conceptual homegenous structure for the combined tangible and intangible measurement and management system, (2) to present the connection between tangible and intangible measurement and management systems (3) to discuss the benefit of a developed system. The literature on intellectual capital (IC) advocates the use of an IC measurement system and stresses the importance of strategic planning and development. This paper describes how the structure of BSC can beutilized for both tangible and intangible measurement systems. The paper also illustrates the link between tangible and intangible systems. From the prior research a conceptual framework for the BSC‐based IC with causalities between perspectives is presented in the paper and used in the developed system. The paper is a conceptual analysis and provides a new innovative model for empirical testing.

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.