The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Intellectual capital: Australian annual reporting practices
Abstract
This study reports the results of an empirical examination of Australian annual reporting of intellectual capital. The findings suggest that the development of a model for reporting intangibles is piecemeal and not widely spread. The outcomes of our exploratory investigation are threefold. First, the key components of intellectual capital are poorly understood, inadequately identified, inefficiently managed, and not reported within a consistent framework when reported at all. Second, the main areas of intellectual capital reporting focus on human resources; technology and intellectual property rights; and organisational and workplace structure. Third, even in an Australian enterprise thought of as “best practice” in this regard, a comprehensive management framework for intellectual capital is yet to be developed, especially for collecting and reporting intellectual capital formation. In conclusion, Australian companies do not compare favourably with several European firms in their ability to measure and report their intellectual capital in the annual report.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Boesso, G., & Kumar, K. (2007) · Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal · doi:10.1108/09513570710741028 · Cited by 415
Appuhami, R., & Bhuyan, M. (2015) · Managerial Auditing Journal · doi:10.1108/maj-04-2014-1022 · Cited by 100
Human capital, value creation and disclosure
Beattie, V., & Smith, S. J. (2010) · Journal of Human Resource Costing & Accounting · doi:10.1108/14013381011105957 · Cited by 74
Metadata
- Authors
- Guthrie, J., & Petty, R.
- Venue
- Journal of Intellectual Capital
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2000-09-01
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 241-251
- ISSN
- 1469-1930 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2130830740
- Cited by
- 832
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 26.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.