The purpose of this paper is to analyse whether the extent and quality of voluntarily disclosed information regarding intellectual capital (IC) are correlated with certain characteristics of a company. IC is very important for IT companies. Therefore, financial and non-financial statements of 32 high-tech companies were investigated using the content analysis method. To test the influence of firm characteristics on the intellectual capital disclosure index (ICDI), the regression model was used. The size of the firm was the only independent variable that has had a statistically significant influence on the ICDI. The auditor type, as well as financial ratios, have not shown a statistically significant influence on the extent and quality of IC disclosures. This study reflects the state regarding the voluntary IC disclosures in Croatia and therefore the study may be a roadmap for further research and, more importantly, might promote awareness of the importance of transparent reporting.Generally, intangibles, IAs, and IC are often used interchangeably with the same general meaning. There are various definitions of IC which exist in literature. Edvinsson, Malone and Brooking, the pioneers when it comes to IC, have a similar but a bit different view on the IC components. According to Brooking, IC divides into human-centered assets, infrastructure assets, intellectual property assets, and market assets, while Edvinsson and Malone have divided IC into human capital, structural capital (organizational, process, and innovation capital), and customer capital [1]. Sullivan [2] has summarized the several definitions of IC, as defined by the pioneers into the field of knowledge creation: "Hubert Saint-Onge defines knowledge capital as the sum of human capital (the capabilities of the individuals required to provide solutions to customers); customer capital (the depth, width, attachment, and profitability of the franchise); and structural capital (the organizational capabilities of the organization to meet market requirements); Leif Edvinson of Skandia defines it as "the sum of the firm's human and structural capital."; and Tom Stewart of Fortune magazine defines IC as "the intangible assets of skill, knowledge, and information." As defined by Larry Prusak, IC is "intellectual material that has been formalized, captured, and leveraged to produce higher-valued assets [3]." Bounfour and Edvinson [4] state that "at the corporate level, intangible investments (research and development or R&D, innovation, knowledge creation and fertilization, marketing and advertising expenditures) are now unanimously considered the most important sources of performance." "The intellectual capital (IC) held by a firm can be thought of as a form of 'unaccounted capital' within the traditional accounting system… described as the knowledge-based equity that supports the knowledge-based assets of a firm [5]." According to the words of Choo and Bontis [6] "as long as the economic forces embrace new knowledge-intensive industries, the field of intellectual...

No abstract

Background: The Covid-19 pandemic has changed the digitalisation level of education. Many institutions had some knowledge and practical background in delivering lectures online. Some countries apply a top-down digitalisation approach driven by policy or strategy and externally impacted by the government. Some other countries rather initiate digitalisation internally by teachers and universities. Objectives: The main goal is to investigate the digitalisation level of the higher education system in Croatia, exploring the digitalisation of economic disciplines compared to other scientific fields. Methods/Approach: We assess the digitalisation level of higher education based on the regulatory framework, applied approach of digitalisation, the agility of transition to online teaching and the existing number of courses and online study programs. Education digitalisation in different countries is compared with the Croatian experience. Results: Although the satisfactory level of higher education institutions’ agility to switch online exist, there hasn’t been a centralised project led by the government and supported by proper funds to increase digitalisation in Croatia. Even before the pandemic, many e-courses from economics and business had been offered to students, but online study programs were exceptions, covering mainly the economics and business field. Conclusions: The Covid-19 pandemic has improved the digitalisation process in the Croatian education system. A general framework for the digitalisation of education should be developed containing the detailed administrative processes and appropriate funds to be implemented.

No abstract

No abstract