Search results

The purpose of this paper is to examine the HRD practices of multinational enterprises (MNEs) operating in Australia to understand the value that MNEs place on investment in their human capital, particularly managerial talent.

Drawing on a representative sample of 211 MNEs operating in Australia, this paper investigates the extent (using frequencies) and determinants (using logistic regression analysis) of training and development expenditure, management development strategies, talent management and succession planning policies.

The findings suggest that less than 20 per cent of MNEs operating in Australia are investing over 4 per cent of their annual pay bill on training and development. Furthermore, almost a quarter of firms invest less than 1 per cent in training and development. However, most MNEs invest in their managers and those with high potential through the use of management development programmes, talent management strategies and succession planning. Interestingly, in comparison to US MNEs, Australian MNEs were less likely to use management development or talent management programmes for senior management or high performing staff.

The current study is cross-sectional and represents a snapshot of MNEs’ HRD practices at one point in time. The study measured the perceptions of the most senior HR manager and did not include the views of other organisational participants. The authors suggest the need for future research studies that incorporate longitudinal research designs and the views of different organisational actors.

HR managers or HRD specialists need to develop a strong understanding of the Australian institutional context, as well as demonstrate the importance/business case for an integrative approach to HRD.

This paper fulfils an identified need to study the HRD practices of MNEs operating in Australia, particularly focusing on the value that MNEs place on their human capital.

In recent decades, oxytocin (OT) has been extensively studied across disciplines. Yet, the role of OT has been discussed little in the context of politics. This chapter proposes that studying the role of this hormone can enrich and advance the study of politics. The chapter reviews the previous findings on OT categorized into two sections: one that focuses on the biological mechanisms and therapeutic potentials and another that focuses on the effects on social behaviors. This review is not exhaustive but is intended to bring political scientists up to date with the progress in OT studies. Next, this chapter highlights that studying the role of OT in political context will benefit both the OT and political science literature, since there is currently a great interest in the context-dependent nature of OT. I highlight several research questions that can be answered at this intersection. Rather than waiting for other disciplines to complete unfolding the precise role of OT, students of biopolitics can make important contributions. Political science can further understand the biological underpinnings of concern for others and partisan behaviors, while OT applied to real-world settings would demonstrate how different contexts shape its effects.

Neo‐classical economic theory provides the framework for general purpose financial reports prepared by Australian government departments and their agencies. These reports, which include a statement of financial position (financial worth) and an operating statement (an estimate of the return on the investment), have an economic rationale: the information is intended to guide the allocation of scarce government resources. All government assets, including those held for their cultural, historical or environmental values (heritage assets) are to be valued utilizing the neo‐classical theory of value. Argues that the accounting exercise is flawed. Measurement of value‐in‐use or value‐in‐exchange of heritage assets is inherently subjective, ignoring institutional conditions and non‐use values. The accounting approach fails to measure either the service value or economic benefits of governmental heritage assets. Consequently, the information generated is inconsistent with the economic rationale and the valuation process may prejudice any assessment of the performance of entities responsible for these assets. There is a strong case for either widening the concept of value to include non‐use values or abandoning the measurement of heritage assets.

This book chapter intends to analyse a particular measurement basis, namely the ‘value in use’, regarding its definition and application in the public sector context. To this end, the current study assesses the development of a measurement practice in a particular jurisdiction, that is, Italy, compared with requirements in current International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSASs), in order to explore its suitability and practicability for a specific category of public sector assets, namely heritage assets.

Recognition, measurement and disclosure of public sector assets constitute relevant matters for national and international public sector accounting standard-setting. This chapter develops a theoretical analysis drawing upon a dualistic approach contrasting current value and historical cost accounting models. Accordingly, the latter should be adapted and then preferred to cope with public sector specificities, with a view to providing information for and enforcing accountability to citizens and their political representatives. Drawing upon this theoretical setting, our analysis develops a consistent design for the overarching conceptual framework for assets in general, providing illustrative examples for specific categories such as financial, heritage, natural and military assets.

With the aim of shedding light on issues surrounding the development and evaluation of report, this paper offers a theory for facilitating and legitimizing an accountability‐based discourse and disclosure in the public health sector. The project adopts Laughlin’s (1995) vision of middle range theory and an accountability perspective to justify the form and normative perspective which shapes the skeletal model to follow. Formulated in part from an analysis of the health management and public sector accounting literatures, the model is now empirically supported from the preferences of health sector accountees in New Zealand. The result is a conceptual construct which is both considerate of and challenging to the standard financial accounting model. The skeletal model consists of five conceptual categories, their interrelationships and properties. The theoretical model considers and mandates illumination of political incentives, incorporates the assumption that accounting can be constitutive as well as reflective and is sympathetic to a wide range of interests and contextual distinctions.

Heritage assets (HAs) are important goods or properties that define a country’s culture, history, and identity. Public sector entities are the primary custodians of a nation’s heritage properties; however, many local museums and historic houses are managed by private not-for-profit (NFP) organisations that essentially act to conserve these heritage places.

Through a documentary analysis, this chapter aims to investigate the points of convergence and the differences between accounting policies for governmental heritage and private NFP organisations.

The study demonstrates that even private NFP entities present the same characteristics as public sector ones in the accounting of heritage goods and that there are certain accounting standards being equally applicable; therefore, the accounting policies for governmental heritage are in accordance with the accounting policies for NFP organisations such as museums, art galleries, charities, churches, for their heritage goods.

The purpose of this paper is to examine how the convergence of private and public sector accounting standards is affecting conceptual and practical issues relating to heritage. More specifically, the paper is intended to provide a better understanding of the state of the art in national and international accounting standards on heritage assets, and of the views influencing such standards.

A qualitative documentary analysis is carried out to explore the variety of existing positions and views on heritage, ranging from the scholarly literature, through potential stakeholders and users, to international and national standard setters.

The analysis shows that the path of convergence between public and private sector standards and practices is still problematic. After more than two decades of debate around the nature, definition, measurement, and reporting of heritage, these issues are far from settled.

In the light of calls for increased measurement and reporting of public sector “assets”, and specifically for the definition of standards to recognise heritage, the paper suggests the need to strongly reconsider whether the convergence between public and private sector standards is desirable, feasible and effective. As such, the risks of embracing simplified or hybrid forms of accounting and reporting for heritage should be more seriously assessed. While reporting on heritage is important, it is fundamental to keep it distinct from reporting on government’s regular operations, in order to appreciate its specific value, nature and features.

Looking at European national standards for heritage, the IPSASB’s proposals, and the reactions to the latter by relevant stakeholders, the paper provides a pluralistic view on the positions and experiences about heritage, contributing to the debate on the convergence between private and public sector accounting standards.

The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the future development of heritage reporting in Australia. Public sector reporting of heritage has been a long-standing issue, due to shortcomings in (sector-neutral) for-profit-based financial reporting standards. Australia’s sector-neutral approach does not meet public sector users’ information needs. The authors develop a heritage reporting model to balance community and other stakeholders’ interests and address prior critiques.

The paper reviews heritage reporting requirements in Anglo-Western Countries, and analyses commentaries and research publications. It evaluates the existing reporting requirements in the context of new public management (which focusses on information and efficiency) and new public governance (NPG) (focussing on balancing interests and quality).

The paper proposes an NPG-based heritage reporting model which includes indicators of performance on the five UNESCO (1972) dimensions and operational guidelines issued by UNESCO (2015). These are identification, presentation, protection, conservation and transmission. The proposed model is consistent with the notion of US SFFAS 29 (the standard for Federal entities). Not all heritage must be capitalised and hence attachment of monetary value, but detailed disclosures are necessary.

The authors expect the proposed heritage reporting model to better serve users of heritage information compared to the present Australian Accounting Standards Board 116: Property, Plant and Equipment.

The authors’ proposed model of heritage reporting attempts to answer Carnegie and Wolnizer’s (1995, 1999) six questions, addresses decades of concerns raised in previous literature and provides a new perspective to heritage reporting based on NPG that should better serve users’ needs.