Reporting Intellectual Capital In
Annual Reports From Australian S/W & I/T Companies
¹ Mahesh Joshi, ² Dharminder Singh Ubha, ³ Jasvinder Sidhu
¹ RMIT University, Melbourne ,Australia; ² Khalsa
College, Patiala , India ;
³ University of Ballarat, Australia
ABSTRACT:
This study examines the annual
reports of the top 20 software and information technology companies listed on
the Australian Stock Exchange, using the content analysis method. The findings
of this study indicate that the levels of Intellectual capital disclosures are
found to be low and are reported in qualitative form rather than quantitative
form. The results of the study highlight that software and information
technology companies in
Keywords: Intellectual capital, Annual report,
Australia, Software sector, Content analysis
1. Introduction
Research in the area of intellectual capital disclosures has been gaining strong support from academics and business over the last few years. An immediate reason of this awareness and growing demand for intellectual capital disclosures is the major economic changes faced by most economies. Recent years have witnessed a paradigm shift in the nature, structure and operations of most industries driving a broad change in all economies. The emphasis is now in the intangibles than tangible assets and knowledge has become a key success factor. The globalisation of the world economy and the increasing role of information technology have also contributed significantly to this change. There is an increasing responsiveness among organizations about the importance of knowledge and its utilisation in a variety of ways, e.g. strategy formulation and implementation. Knowledge plays a critical role in production, distribution and growth in a wide range of industries and is classed as a factor of production due to its strategic importance. Australia is a knowledge economy and “in the knowledge economy, characterized by complex and dynamic competitive environments, knowledge-based resources represent the true source of sustained competitive advantage for the firm” (Pablos, 2003, p.62).
The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) provided the following definition of Knowledge economy:
The knowledge based economy” is an expression
coined to describe trends in advanced economies towards greater dependence on
knowledge, information and high skill levels, and the increasing need for ready
access to all of these by the business and public sectors (OECD, 2005; pp. 18).
The growing importance and use of knowledge in any economy qualifies it as a knowledge economy. Such economy places greater emphasis on the use and management of knowledge (Cabrita and Vaz, 2005) and future prosperity depends on the efficient use of knowledge (Wood, 2003). In a knowledge economy, the value of an organisation not only is determined by its physical resources, but also depends on its ability to accumulate and deploy knowledge (Guthrie et al., 2004). Intellectual capital of a company is regarded as a major contributory to the growth and expansion of the knowledge base of the company.
This paper has eight sections. The second section introduces the term intellectual capital and its components. This section also discusses the nature of intellectual capital disclosures due to no contemporary reporting requirements. Third section briefly discusses the shift in the Australian economy including changes in its composition over last two decades. The fourth and fifth sections explain the nature of software industry in general and Australian software industry in particular. These sections also explain the critical importance of intellectual capital for software industry. Some facts and trends about Australian software industry are also briefly discussed. The sixth section provides the literature review related to disclosure of intellectual capital. Studies on the disclosures of intellectual capital in the software and information technology sector as used to present a case for such study in Australian context. The seventh section discusses the sample and justification of selection of the largest companies. This section also briefly explains the significance of the use of audited financial statements as evidence of company’s intellectual capital disclosures. Intellectual capital disclosures are primarily voluntary and some rationale for current practice is also discussed particularly accounting standards and legislative requirements. The eighth section presents the findings this study using four analysis tables. The last section conducts a critical analysis of the findings. In this section, some limitations and implications of current study and suggestions for further research are also briefly discussed.
2. Intellectual Capital And Components
Intellectual capital is a term used for knowledge based resources of organisations. In an intelligible form researchers proposed that the value of intellectual capital is the difference between market value and book value of a company (Brennan, 2001; Cordon, 1998; Oliveras et al, 2008) and one way to define intellectual capital is on the basis of its components (Woodcock and Whiting, 2009). Skilled employees, sound infrastructure, networking systems, information systems, innovativeness, brand name, trademarks and knowledge bases are some examples of intellectual capital (Khan and Ali, 2010). Sveiby’s model has been used by many researchers over the last decade (Abeysekera, 2007; Abeysekera and Guthrie, 2005; Bozzolan, et al, 2003; Guthrie and Petty, 2000; Guthrie, et al, 2004; Guthrie, et al, 2006; Petty and Guthrie, 1999; Sujan and Abeysekera, 2007). Sveiby (1997) divided intellectual capital into internal capital, external capital and human capital. Internal capital mainly consists of the strength of any organisation and it includes its systems, research and development policies, procedures and internal control, patents, models, work environments, etc. In other words it includes the capabilities of an organisation to meet and beat the market competition.
The external component of intellectual capital consists of relational capital and efficiency in distribution and supply chains, brand and market image, trademarks, etc. The relational capital consists of relations with suppliers (of materials, services, finance, etc), customers, franchisees, etc. The human capital aspect of intellectual capital mainly consists of employee competence. Qualifications, skills, training and development which also includes knowledge of work procedures, work ethics and values, experience, etc (Bozzolan, et al, 2003; Guthrie and Petty, 2000; Guthrie, et al, 2004). This study supports the model proposed by Sveiby but uses Bontis’s model of 39 items. According to Goh and Lim (2004) recent studies have three different perspectives related to intellectual capital. These are, first, development of a framework, second, the reporting of intellectual capital and third, the measurement of intellectual capital. There is no framework for the reporting and measurement of intellectual capital, rendering it difficult to either define intellectual capital at a most fundamental level or describe its components in a detailed fashion. According to Woodcock and Whiting (2009) the difficulty in defining intellectual capital can be attributed to the inherent complexity in the concept. One of the factors contributing to this complexity could be a lack of framework of reporting and recognition of intellectual capital as a component of financial reports, whether from a qualitative or quantities perspective.
There is a no accounting standard or legislative requirement to report intellectual capital as an item of annual reports or financial statements. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect an ad doc practice is followed by companies for intellectual capital disclosures. As a result, intellectual capital disclosures are voluntary. According to Bruggen et al. (2009) due to voluntary nature of disclosures, only a few companies disclose intellectual capital and this leads to information asymmetry between companies and information users. Other drawback is an inconsistency in the presentation of information by different companies (Sujan and Abeysekera, 2007). Lev’s (2001) definition of intellectual capital fits closely with the popular meaning of intellectual capital as it is used in most contemporary research. Lev (2001) stated that “Intangible assets are non-physical sources of value (claims to future benefits) generated by innovation (discovery), unique organizational designs, or human resource practices” (p.7).
3. The Australian Economy
The Australian economy has undergone significant changes in previous
decades. The deregulation of the Australian banking sector in the 1980s led to
an unprecedented change in the economy and a complete transformation of the
Australian priority sectors for economic development has been evidenced. A
majority of the large organisations were depending
more upon the use of knowledge than their physical resources (Guthrie and
Petty, 2000). In last two decades,
4. Software Industry
The software industry entirely depends on human resources particularly their skills, training and knowledge. Therefore, a significant value creation is possible by paying attention to the effective management of human resources (Wright and Snell, 2005). Pike, et al (2002) found that intellectual capital was an important component in the valuation of most companies and particularly high tech and software companies. The software industry also does not require extensive capital investments. Patibandla and Petersen (2002) stated that products in software industry require employees to possess special skills, knowledge and capabilities. In software companies the importance of intellectual capital is significant and intellectual capital has a comparative edge over tangible assets. One aspect of this comparative advantage is that intellectual capital cannot be replicated or reproduced like tangible assets. The efficient management of skills of employees is vital to succeed for a long term growth in the software industry; however, technology also plays an important role. Research also shows that employee skills and technology together result in improved financial results (Low, 2000; Seetharaman et al., 2002).
5. Australian Software
Industry
The software industry In 2007, the Australian
software market industry contributed A$4.4 billion revenue to the economy. The
compound annual growth rate (CAGR) for the years 2003-2007 was 7.1%, which was
lower than the Asia-Pacific CAGR of 10.3%. In comparison to other Asia-Pacific
countries, China and Japan, the Australian software industry growth over the 5
year period, 2003-2007 was less than China by 6% but slightly higher than Japan
by 1.3%. The share of Asia-Pacific countries in the global software market was
27.3% in 2008 which ranks third after
Australian
Software Market Value A$ Billion 2003-2007
|
|
|
|
|
Year |
A$ billion |
% Growth |
|
2003 |
4.0 |
-- |
|
2004 |
4.3 |
7.2 % |
|
2005 |
4.6 |
7.2 % |
|
2006 |
4.9 |
7.0 % |
|
2007 |
5.3 |
7.0 % |
|
CAGR
7.1 % Source: Datamonitor
|
||
Microsoft Corporation was the dominant player in the Australian software market with an 11.8% share followed by 5.2% by IBM Corporation and 3.6% by the Oracle Corporation.
6. Literature
Review
There have been many studies examining intellectual capital disclosures. Some of the selected studies include Australia (Guthrie and Petty, 2000; Sujan and Abeysekera, 2007), Ireland Brennan, 2001), Sweden (Olsson, 2001), Canada (Bontis, 2003), Malaysia (Goh and Lim, 2004), Sri Lanka (Abeysekera and Guthrie, 2005; Abeysekera (2007), New Zealand (Whiting and Miller, 2008; Schneider and Samkin, 2008), India (Kamath, 2008; Murthy and Abeysekera, 2007; Joshi and Ubha, 2009) and Bangladesh (Khan and Ali, 2010).
Guthrie and Petty (2000) conducted a study of intellectual capital disclosures of the 20 largest Australian listed companies. The selection of companies was conducted on the basis of market capitalisation which was a general practice in other contemporary studies as well. They found that intellectual capital disclosures were primarily qualitative and lacked quantitative aspects. The awareness of intellectual capital reporting was also not systematic and there was loose commitment to report among reporting companies. A study of 21 Irish companies was conducted by Brennan (2001) employing content analysis of annual reports with 11 listed companies and 10 private companies. Another study employed the content analysis of the largest 18 Swedish companies using the human capital aspect (Olsson, 2001) and selection of companies was made on the basis of market capitalisation. The analysis was based on five criteria from the annual reports. This study found that there was an inadequate disclosure of intellectual capital in annual reports and it also lacked reporting quality. The human capital information was not more than 7% of the total reported information in the annual reports. In a seminal study, Bontis (2003) conducted a content analysis of 10,000 Canadian companies and found that only 68 companies used terms related to intellectual capital in their annual reports, which makes intellectual capital reporting companies less than 1 percent in the sample.
Goh and Lim (2004) examined the intellectual
capital disclosures by top 20 profit-making public listed companies in
Guthrie, et al (2006) carried out a content analysis of the annual reports
of companies in a comparative study of two countries completed in two phases.
The first phase used 1998 data for the 20 largest Australian organizations and
the second phase used 2002 data of the 50 largest Australian and 100
In a
Despite the fact that the importance of intellectual capital has increased in recent times, there are inadequate disclosures of intellectual capital in the financial statements of companies (Bruggen et. al., 2009). Australia presents an ideal case for the analysis of intellectual capital disclosures (by the largest software companies) because the economy has been undergoing economic transformation in the financial services, tourism, information technology sectors and the niche manufacturing gaining momentum. These industries have a significant role of intellectual capital in their operations, sustainability and growth. This has led to a decline in the importance of traditional strong areas such as manufacturing and mining (Abeysekera and Guthrie, 2005). In past there have been dedicated studies of the intellectual capital disclosures by software industry. For example Kamath (2008), Murthy and Abeysekera (2007) and Joshi and Ubha (2009) carried out content analysis of intellectual capital disclosures of the Indian software industry. It justifies a study of the Australian software sector and this paper aims to make a contribution to the growing literature on intellectual capital disclosures by analysing the level of disclosures made by the most important sector of a knowledge economy, software industry.
7. Sample
And Method
This paper employs a content analysis of annual reports of the 20 largest Australian software and information technology companies selected on the basis of their market capitalisation. Many researchers have used the largest listed companies to study the intellectual capital disclosures where selection of companies was made on the basis of market capitalisation (Abeysekera, 2007; Guthrie and Petty, 2000; Olsson, 2001; Guthrie et al, 2006; Abeysekera and Guthrie, 2004; Abeysekera and Guthrie, 2005; Guthrie, et al, 2004; Bontis, 2003). A large number of studies have employed content analysis of annual reports in a wide range of research activity and a popular field has been corporate social responsibility and environmental reporting (Belal, 2001; Deegan and Gordon, 1996; Deegan and Rankin, 1996; Guthrie and Parker, 1990, Guthrie and Mathews, 1985; Hackston and Milne, 1996; Milne and Adler, 1999; Zeghal and Ahmed, 1990). The content analysis of annual reports involves codification of qualitative and quantitative information into pre-defined categories in order to derive patterns in the presentation and reporting of information (Guthrie and Petty, 2000). Over the last decade, content analysis has been used to study the intellectual capital performance and reporting (Abeysekera, 2007; Abeysekera and Guthrie, 2005; April et al, 2003; Bontis, 2003; Bozzolan, et al, 2003; Brennan, 2001; Guthrie and Petty, 2000; Guthrie, et al, 2004; Guthrie, et al, 2006).
In a study using content analysis of a
Bontis (2003) claimed that audited statements are an important source of information for external stakeholders who aim to assess financial capacity of organizations. Bontis further claimed that efficient market theory proved that current market price reflects all publicly available information including that from annual reports. Therefore, it can be claimed that increased intellectual capital disclosures in annual reports can have significant effects on future potentials of organizations. Annual reports are a useful piece of information and managers use them to signal what is important through reporting mechanism (Guthrie and Petty, 2000) and this makes annual reports a strong nexus between company and various stakeholders. Repeated publication of annual reports every year adds further characteristics such as comparability and enables multi facets analysis. Toms (2002, p.258) claimed that “specifically intangible asset creation occurs through enhanced reputation and disclosure influences the external perception of reputation”. Guthrie and Petty (2000) established a view that companies use corporate annual reports to present a good public image.
International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) and Financial Accounting
Standards Board (FASB) of the
To shortlist the terms for finding corporate disclosures of intellectual capital, a survey of literature was performed. The panel of researchers from the World Congress on Intellectual Capital finalised the list of intellectual capital items into a collection of 39 terms that encompassed much of the IC literature (Bontis, 2003). The list used by Bontis was considered comprehensive for this type of research on knowledge based information technology companies (Joshi and Ubha, 2009). These intellectual capital terms are listed in the Appendix 1.
8. Analysis
Of The Results
Intellectual capital terms were found using content analysis; the items reported and their line counts are presented in Table 1.
Table
1: Disclosure Of Intellectual Capital Attributes
|
Sr. No. |
Items
of intellectual capital |
No of Disclosing Companies |
Number of Lines Disclosed |
|
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. |
Business
knowledge Company
reputation Competitive
intelligence Corporate
learning Customer knowledge Employee
knowledge Employee
value Knowledge
sharing Information
systems Intellectual
capital Intellectual
property Knowledge
management Human
assets Organizational
culture |
2 9 3 2 1 1 1 1 3 2 16 1 1 7 |
8 46 12 6 4 2 1 2 11 6 108 1 3 43 |
Table 1 highlights that out of the list of 39 items; only 14 items were found in the annual reports of the Australian IT companies. The term intellectual property has been disclosed by 16 companies with a line count of 108 lines and it was the maximum disclosure of any item by the companies under study. This was followed by the disclosure of company reputation having been disclosed by 9 companies and organizational culture which was disclosed by 7 companies. The line count for these items was 46 and 43 respectively. Intellectual capital, the theme term of this paper, was disclosed by 2 companies only in 6 lines. These companies include SMS Management and Technology and ASG Group. SMS Management and Technology signifies the importance of its intellectual capital in its annual report (2008) by stating as follows:
The Company
continued to invest in developing its intellectual capital during the year.
This included: Extension to our Knowledge Management portal ‘Magellan’ and Enhancement of our
Customer Relationship Management System
It further reports that
SMS invests
heavily in the development of our intellectual capital and the growth of our
staff through open and collaborative forums, coupled with industry best
practice. Throughout FY 2008, SMS has made considerable inroads in the
continued codification of its intellectual capital and knowledge into reusable
tools, templates, methods and processes.
ASG Group gives importance to its intellectual capital in its annual report for the year 2008 by stating as follows:
Health is
also the subject of a build up of capability to
assist clients who are increasingly being driven by efficiency and client
coverage objectives. Again, ASG has spent considerable time building on its
client relationships and its intellectual capital in this area. The client base
recognises the strategic focus that the Company is
placing on this area.
The term knowledge management which must be an item of prime importance for disclosure at least by knowledge based IT companies was disclosed only by SMS Management and Technology with one line count. The term business knowledge which reflects the capability of any company was disclosed by two companies only. ASG Group shares this information in its annual report of 2008 which states:
Because this
is done over the long term, our role as prime contractor, our business
knowledge and our ability to offer a complete solution through our own
resources and through access to our subcontractors, ASG adopts a strong incumbency
position
Employees are the real reservoir of knowledge and the success or failure of any company depends to a large extent on the value of its employees. It is astonishing to observe that employee value has been disclosed by only on company , namely, Melbourne IT which reports it as under:
Talented and
dedicated employees are key to
Knowledge sharing is the key to betterment and the same has again been disclosed by only one company i.e. DWS Advanced Business Solutions as below:
To stay ahead
of our competitors, DWS has invested in a culture for capturing and sharing
knowledge, enabling a cycle of continuous improvement. This has been done
through: Showcasing innovative solutions at monthly meetings; Rewarding staff
based on their involvement in encouraging best practice; and sharing
information through the DWS internal employee portal.
However, most of the terms relating to the employees and customers could not find any place in the annual reports of the selected companies. The three important constituents of intellectual capital-relational capital, structural capital and customer capital-also did not figure in any of the annual reports of the companies under study.
Table 2: Company-wise Analysis Of Intellectual Capital Disclosure
|
Sr. No. |
Name
of the Company |
No of Items Disclosed |
Number of Lines
Disclosed |
|
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. |
SMS
Management & Technology Technology
One Oakton Reckon UXC DWS
Adv. Business Solutions ASG
Group Hansen
Technologies Objective GBST ITX Group Limited ISS
Group Bravura
Solutions Prophecy
International Rubik
Financial 3Q QMASTOR Stratatel |
4 5 3 1 1 6 5 5 1 1 2 5 0 2 2 1 1 2 0 1 |
20 36 7 14 11 22 20 27 6 3 9 22 0 15 9 2 7 12 0 9 |
Table 2 highlights the company wise analysis of the intellectual capital disclosure.
The table shows that DWS Advanced Business Solutions has disclosed the maximum
number of items (06) and line count (22) from the total list of 39 items. The
disclosure of 6 items out of 39 is deplorably low and reflects that the company
has not considered intellectual capital disclosure as an important disclosure
subject. This is followed by Technology One, Melbourne IT, ASG Group and ITX
Group Limited with a disclosure of 5 items and SMS Management and Technology
with disclosure of 4 items. Disclosures by the remaining companies disclosed in
the range of 1 to 3 items where as ISS Group and
Table
3: Variation In Item-wise Disclosure
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
|
0 1 2 3 4 5 |
2 7 4 1 1 5 |
|
Mean
Disclosure |
2.35 |
|
Standard
Deviation |
1.76 |
|
Coefficient
of Variation |
74.89% |
Table 4: Variation In Line-wise Disclosure
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
|
0-5 5-10 10-15 15-20 20-25 25-30 30-35 35-40 |
4 6 3 1 4 1 0 1 |
|
Mean
Disclosure |
13.25 |
|
Standard
Deviation |
1.90 |
|
Coefficient
of Variation |
14.34% |
The mean disclosure for the items disclosed by the companies comes to be as low as 2.35 items. There is a variation of 1.76 items on average as suggested by the value of standard deviation. The coefficient of variation comes to be as high as 74.89% which indicates a significant variation in item-wise disclosure in the annual reports of the companies. The mean disclosure in Line Count also comes to 13.25 lines with a variation of 1.90 lines on average as suggested by standard deviation. The coefficient of variation comes to be meagre 14.34% which indicates lesser variation in line-wise disclosure in the annual reports of the companies. There is no specific reporting pattern of intellectual capital as a special part or content of the annual report in spite of its high relevance in the knowledge intensive companies.
8. Conclusion
The analysis of the reporting patterns of Australian software and
information technology companies shows very low level of IC recording and
reporting by the sample companies. The findings of this research exhibit that
intellectual capital disclosures are not a priority for the Australian
information technology sector. The average number of items and lines reported
by the sample companies is very low which suggests that there is low awareness
and a lack of interest in recording and reporting of intellectual capital
variables by the companies. The companies have not even reported principal
intellectual capital terms such as intellectual capital, knowledge management
and employee skills and quality. The reporting practices for intellectual
capital items were not consistent and lacked an appropriate measurement
approach. It has also been found that there is a general absence of well
defined guidelines for the intellectual capital disclosure in the annual
reports from the national or international accounting bodies and Australian
professional accounting associations. Accordingly, Australian information
technology companies are lagging behind in the reporting and disclosure of
intellectual capital in their annual reports. However, the findings of the study are similar
to various other studies on different corporate groups (Abeysekera and Guthrie, 2005; Brennan, 2001; Bontis,
2003 and Pablos, 2003) and the studies on information
technology sector (Joshi and Ubha, 2009; Kamath, 2008) conducted by intellectual capital researchers
in different countries. Knowledge,
innovation, information technology and people are key contributories in
the future of any organisation and intellectual
capital is the key driver of market value in the knowledge economy. The low
level of reporting on intellectual capital by the Information Technology
companies, whose very basis of existence is knowledge and innovation may be partly because of the fact that
disclosures of Intellectual capital are voluntary in nature.
It has been already discussed in
this paper that there is no established financial reporting framework for the
disclosures of intellectual capital either in
9. References
Abeysekera,
Abeysekera, I., Guthrie, J. (2004), Human Capital Reporting in a Developing Nation, British Accounting Review, 36(3), 251-268.
Abeysekera, I., Guthrie, J. (2004a), How is Intellectual Capital being Reported in a Developing Nation, Accounting and Accountability in Emerging and Transition Economies, Vol. 2, Supplement, 149-165.
Abeysekera, I., Guthrie, J. (2005), An Empirical
Investigation of Annual Reporting Trends of Intellectual Capital in Sri Lanka,
Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 16(3), 151-163.
April, K.A., Bosma, P., Deglon, D.A. (2003), IC Measurement and Reporting: Establishing a Practice in SA Mining, Journal of Intellectual Capital, 4(2), 165-180.
Belal, A.R. (2001), A Study of Corporate Social
Disclosures in
Bontis, N. (2001), Assessing Knowledge Assets: A review of the Models Used to Measure Intellectual Capital”, International Journal of Management Reviews, 3(1), 41-60.
Bontis, N. (2003), Intellectual Capital Disclosures in Canadian Corporations, Journal of Human Resource Costing & Accounting, 7(1/2), 9-20.
Bozzolan, S., Favotto, F., Ricceri, F. (2003), Italian Annual Intellectual Capital Disclosure: An Empirical Analysis, Journal of Intellectual Capital, 4(4), 543-558.
Brennan, N. (2001), Reporting Intellectual Capital in Annual Reports: Evidence from Ireland, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 14(4), 423-436.
Bruggen, A., Vergauwen,
P., Dao, M. (2009), Determinants of Intellectual Capital Disclosure: Evidence
from
Cabrita, M., Vaz, J. (2006), Intellectual Capital and Value Creation: Evidence from the Portuguese Banking Industry, The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(1), 11-20.
Cordon, B. (1998), Gaps in GAAP, Forbes, January, 26-33.
Datamonitor Plc (2008), Software Industry Profile:
Asia-Pacific,
Datamonitor Plc (2008), Software Industry Profile:
Datamonitor Plc (2008), Software Industry Profile:
Datamonitor Plc (2008), Software Industry Profile:
Global,
Datamonitor Plc (2008), Software Industry Profile:
Datamonitor Plc, (2008), Software Industry
Profile:
Davey, J., Schneider, L., Davey, H. (2009), Intellectual Capital Disclosures and the Fashion Industry, Journal of Intellectual Capital, 10(3), 401-424.
Deegan, C., Gordon, B. (1996), A Study of the Environmental Disclosure Policies of Australian Corporations, Accounting and Business Research, 26(3), 187-199.
Deegan, C., Rankin, M. (1996), Do Australian Companies Report Environmental News
Objectively? An Analysis of Environmental Disclosures by Firms Prosecuted Successfully by
the Environmental Protection Authority, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 9(2), 52-69.
Goh, P. C., Lim, K. P. (2004), Disclosing Intellectual Capital in
Company Annual Reports Evidence from
Gray, R., Kouhy, R., Lavers, S. (1995), Corporate
and Social Environmental Reporting: a Review of the Literature and a
Longitudinal Study of
Guthrie, J. (1999),There is No Accounting for
Intellectual Capital in
Guthrie, J., Mathews, M.R. (1985), Corporate Social Accounting in
Guthrie J., Parker L.D., (1990), Corporate Social Disclosure Practice: A Comparative International Analysis, Advances in Public Interest Accounting, 3, 159 -175
Guthrie, J., Petty, R. (2000), Intellectual Capital: Australian Annual Reporting Practices, Journal of Intellectual Capital, 1(3), 241-251.
Guthrie, J., Petty, R., Ricceri,
F. (2006), The Voluntary Reporting of
Intellectual Capital: Comparing Evidence from Hong Kong and
Guthrie, J., Petty, R., Yongvanich, K., Ricceri, F. (2004), Using Content Analysis as a Research Method to Inquire into Intellectual Capital Reporting, Journal of Intellectual Capital, 5(2), 282-293.
Hackston, D. and Milne, M.J. (1996), Some Determinants of Social and Environmental Disclosures in New Zealand Companies, Auditing, Accounting & Accountability Journal, 9(1), 237-256.
Joshi, M., Ubha, D.S. (2009), Intellectual Capital Disclosures: the Search for a new Paradigm in Financial Reporting by the Knowledge Sector of Indian Economy, Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(5) 575-582; Accessed January 2010: www.ejkm.com/volume-7/v7-5/Joshi_and_Ubha.pdf
Kamath, B. (2008), Intellectual Capital Disclosure
in
Khan, M. H., Ali, M. M. (2010), An Empirical Investigation and Users’
Perceptions on Intellectual Capital Reporting in Banks: Evidence from
Lev. B. (2001), Intangibles:
Management, Measurement, and Reporting, Brookings Institution Press,
Low, J. (2000), The Value Creation Index, Journal of Intellectual Capital, 1(3), 252-263.
Milne, M., Adler, R. (1999), Exploring the Reliability of Social and Environmental Disclosures Content Analysis’, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 12(2), 237-256.
Murthy, V., Abeysekera, I. (2007), Human Capital Value Creation Practices of Software and Service Exporter Firms in India, Journal of Human Resource Costing & Accounting, 11(2), 84-103.
OECD, (2005), The Measurement of Scientific and Technological Activities:
Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data: Oslo Manual, Third
Edition” prepared by the Working Party of National Experts on Scientific and
Technology Indicators, OECD,
Oliveras, E., Gowthorpe,
C., Kasperskaya, Y., Perramon,
J. (2008), Reporting Intellectual Capital in
Olsson, B. (2001), Annual Reporting Practices: Information About Human Resources in Corporate Annual Reports in Major Swedish Companies, Journal of Human Resources Costing & Accounting, 6(1), 39-52.
Pablos, P. O. (2003, Intellectual Capital
Reporting in
Patibandla, M., Petersen, B. (2002), Role of Transnational Corporations in the Evolution of a High-Tech Industry: the Vase of India’s Software Industry”, World Development, 30(9), 1561-1577.
Petty, R., Guthrie, J. (1999), Managing Intellectual Capital from Theory to Practice', Australian CPA, August, 18-21.
Petty, R., Guthrie, J. (2000), Intellectual Capital Literature Review: Measurement, Reporting and Management, Journal of Intellectual Capital, 1(2), 155-176.
Pike, S., Rylander, A., Roos, G. (2002), Intellectual Capital Management and Disclosure, in Choo, C.W. & Bontis, N. (eds.), The Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital and Organizational Knowledge, Oxford University Press, New York, USA.
Schneider, A., Samkin, G. (2008), Intellectual Capital Reporting by the New Zealand Local Government Sector, Journal of Intellectual Capital, 9(3), 456-486.
Seetharaman, A., Sooria, H. H., Saravanan, A. S. (2002), Intellectual Capital Accounting and Reporting in the Knowledge Economy, Journal of Intellectual Capital, 3(2), 128-148.
Sujan, A., Abeysekera,
Svieby, K. E. (1997), The New Organisational
Wealth: Managing and Measuring Knowledge
Based Assets, Berrett-Koehler Publishers,
Toms, J. S. (2002), Firm Resources, Quality Signals and the Determinants of
Corporate Environmental Reputation: Some
Whiting, R. H., Miller, J. C. (2008), Voluntary Disclosure of Intellectual Capital in New Zealand Annual Reports and the “Hidden Value”, Journal of Human Resource Costing & Accounting, 12(1), 26-50.
Wood, J. (2003),
Woodcock, J. and Whiting, R.H. (2009), Intellectual Capital Disclosures by
Australian Companies, paper presented at the annual AFAANZ Conference,
Wright, P. M., Snell, S. A. (2005), Partner or Guardian? HR’s Challenge in Balancing Value and Values, Human Resource Management, 44(2), 177-182.
Zeghal, D., Ahmed, S.A. (1990), Comparison of Social Responsibility Information Disclosure Nedia Used by Canadian Firms, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 3(1), 38-53.
Appendix 1: Items of intellectual capital