Search results

In 2000, Cañibano et al. published a literature review entitled “Accounting for Intangibles: A Literature Review”. This paper revisits the conclusions drawn in that paper. We also discuss the intervening developments in scholarly research, standard setting and practice over the past 20+ years to outline the future challenges for research into accounting for intangibles.

We conducted a literature review to identify past developments and link the findings to current accounting standard-setting developments to inform our view of the future.

Current intangibles accounting practices are conservative and unlikely to change. Accounting standard setters are more interested in how companies report and disclose the value of intangibles rather than changing how they are determined. Standard setters are also interested in accounting for new forms of digital assets and reporting economic, social, governance and sustainability issues and how these link to financial outcomes. The IFRS has released complementary sustainability accounting standards for disclosing value creation in response to the latter. Therefore, the topic of intangibles stretches beyond merely how intangibles create value but how they are also part of a firm’s overall risk and value creation profile.

There is much room academically, practically, and from a social perspective to influence the future of accounting for intangibles. Accounting standard setters and alternative standards, such as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and European Union non-financial and sustainability reporting directives, are competing complementary initiatives.

Our results reveal a window of opportunity for accounting scholars to research and influence how intangibles and other non-financial and sustainability accounting will progress based on current developments.

As China’s e-commerce and cross-border e-commerce rapidly develop, the cross-border e-commerce supply chain exhibits characteristics of globalized development scale, collaborative multiparty participation, streamlined management processes, digitalized production and trade and flexible strategic choices. It tends toward data-driven intelligence, interoperable information collaboration, personalized order responses, sustainable supply chain management and secure blockchain technology. These characteristics and trends provide critical references for businesses, governments and investors.

In response to issues such as inconsistent legal regulations, imbalanced logistics and transportation, imperfect payment settlements and opaque supply chains.

It is recommended to take measures to strengthen cooperation and communication, optimize logistics, reduce customs clearance difficulties, reinforce safeguard measures and promote sustainable development, collectively fostering the healthy growth of cross-border e-commerce.

With the rapid development of cross-border e-commerce, green and low-carbon initiatives have become a significant trend in this sector. The cross-border e-commerce supply chain refers to the mechanism that reduces environmental impacts and enhances resource efficiency from manufacturers to consumers. It primarily involves manufacturers, e-commerce platforms, logistics companies and payment and settlement processes. The cross-border e-commerce supply chain is gradually becoming a highlight in China’s foreign trade, supporting the concept of “buying globally and selling globally” and connecting the “world’s factory” with the “world’s market.”

The purpose of this paper is to identify and describe the influence of the knowledge base (KB) of the company on driving forces of innovation processes in knowledge-intensive services (KIS) and to compare the level of innovativeness of the final services.

The paper investigates through qualitative research 11 KIS organisations with different KB.

The research results identified and described the influence of the KB on driving forces of innovations processes and its results in companies with four newly identified KBs (analytical, synthetic, symbolic and compliance).

Further research, based on a larger number of companies, is needed to confirm the results of this research and to complement the effect of the KB on driving forces of innovation.

This research can help organisations understand how to develop strategic plans and new ideas for innovative services depending on the KB of the organisation.

The description of successful innovation processes and results in several leading companies presented in the study may help other companies in identifying knowledge-integration practices to improve performance and innovation processes that support multiplicity, productivity and creativity.

The study systemised the sources of new ideas for innovation in companies with different KB, several driving forces of innovation were identified and how these forces are affected by each KB; lastly, innovation results were compared in companies with different KB.

Since 2015, China has made efforts to reform its intellectual property rights (IPR) system to better protect and stimulate innovation. These reforms are a result of the demand for more stringent intellectual property (IP) protection from China’s domestic, innovative industries and a measure to ease the pressure exerted by its foreign trading partners, particularly against the background of the US-China trade dispute that started at the beginning of 2018. This paper summarizes these reforms and their implications.

This paper combines a variety of sources, including academic articles, government websites, news reports, industry surveys and expert opinions, to offer insights in China’s IPR system and its recent reforms.

This paper summarizes and discusses (1) the state’s law amendments, including the 2015 amendment of the “Law on Promoting the Transformation of Scientific and Technological Achievements”, the second amendment of the “Anti-Unfair Competition Law” with regard to trade secret protection, the fourth amendment of the “Patent Law”, and the legislations and regulations addressing the criticisms of the US administration over China’s so-called “forced” technology transfer policies; (2) the establishment of the specialized IP courts and tribunals since 2014; (3) the restructuring of the State IP Office; and (4) the issuing of an “Outline for Building an IPR Powerhouse (2021–2035)”.

This paper highlights China’s efforts to make its IPR system stronger and more just. It also discusses international observers’ reactions and pinpoints specific areas for further improvement.