Intellectual capital reporting: a longitudinal study of New Zealand companies

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine intellectual capital reporting patterns of New Zealand companies over a longitudinal period, comparing knowledge intensive companies with traditional product-based companies. Design/methodology/approach – Content analysis was used to examine the intellectual capital reporting of five knowledge intensive companies and five traditional product-based companies listed on the New Zealand Stock Exchange during 2004-2010. Findings – The longitudinal study found that although there was an increase in intellectual capital reporting from 2004 to 2010, there was no strong pattern reflecting a marked increase in reporting over the time period. The findings also show that the level of intellectual capital reporting cannot be determined by the type of organisation. Further, the majority of intellectual capital reporting was found to be in discursive form and only a small percentage of reporting conveyed negative news. Research limitations/implications – The results of this study are limited by the small sample size overall and the small number of companies in both the knowledge intensive and the traditional product-based groups. Practical implications – The research suggests areas that could be considered by regulatory bodies and policy makers when developing more informed intellectual capital reporting guidelines. Originality/value – This research provides a basis for further research, debate and action regarding intellectual capital in both academia and practice. Longitudinal intellectual capital reporting research and distinctions between knowledge intensive and traditional product-based companies have seldom been undertaken. Consequently little is known about the changes in intellectual capital reporting over time or the differences in intellectual capital reporting, if any, between type of company.

Relationship between Unionized Companies, Government Ownership and Reporting Human Capital Information in Corporate Annual Reports

“…Previous ICD studies consistently showed that HCD in annual reports was predominantly disclosed after relational capital disclosure (RCD) (e.g., Guthrie & Petty 2000;Brennan 2001;Bozzolan, O' Regan & Ricceri 2006;Campbell & Rahman 2010;Abhayawansa & Azim 2014). However, several other recent studies (e.g., Wagiciengo & Belal 2012;Bellora & Guenther 2013;De Silva, Stratford & Clark 2014). The results of these studies may reflect the expanding interest on reporting human capital over relational and structural capital information.…”

“…The findings suggested that human capital was the second most popular information disclosed (after relational capital) and accounted for 30% of the total ICD. Many subsequent studies followed the similar genre of Guthrie and Petty (2000) Silva et al 2014 in New Zealand) used corporate annual reports as the study subject. In the Malaysian context, similar studies were conducted by Haji and Ghazali (2012) and Amin, Saringat, Hassan and Ismail (2013).…”

Financial statement informativeness and intellectual capital disclosure

“…In the first stream, several longitudinal studies show that the companies increased their level of IC disclosure over time (Abdolmohammadi, 2005;Vergauwen et al, 2007;Wagiciengo and Belal, 2012;De Silva et al, 2014). Other studies have examined the types of IC information disclosed by companies to investigate whether they are quantitative (numerical) or rather qualitative (descriptive/narrative) in nature.…”

The Determinants of Intellectual Capital Disclosure: Evidence from French stock exchange

“…Different studies that considered industry as an independent variable of ICD have shown different results. De Silva et al (2014) and Branco et al (2011) have not found industry as determinant of ICD. However for Cordazzo (2007), Oliveira et al (2006) and Whiting and Woodcock (2011) industry has appeared to be a significant determinant of ICD.…”