Intangible assets and their reporting practices: Evidence from slovenia

The aim of the research is to achieve a conclusion what is the level of the reporting practice on intangible assets in two countries - in the Republic of Serbia and in the Republic of Slovenia trough a comparative descriptive statistics. Consolidated financial statements of listed companies in these two countries were used from the Belgrade Stock Exchange (Serbia) and the Ljubljana Stock Exchange (Slovenia). The reason for the use of consolidated financial statements lies in the fact that they can contain unconsolidated intangible assets already recognized in the separate financial statements of the companies included in the group, as well as internally generated intangible assets that meet the conditions for recognition in a business combination (including Goodwill). The general assessment is that the survey results indicate a very low level of reporting practice of intangible assets in Serbia and relatively satisfactory level of reporting practice in Slovenia. Individual results are given in the fourth part of the paper.

Download Full-text

The non-financial reporting practices of Hungarian listed public interest entities considering the 2014/95/EU Directive

Journal of Applied Accounting Research ◽

10.1108/jaar-04-2021-0086 ◽

2022 ◽

Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽

Author(s):

Edit Lippai-Makra ◽

Zsuzsanna Ilona Kovács ◽

Gábor Dávid Kiss

Keyword(s):

Financial Reporting ◽

Public Interest ◽

Intangible Assets ◽

Reporting Quality ◽

Mandatory Reporting ◽

Content Type ◽

Reporting Practices ◽

Corporate Strategies ◽

Eu Directive ◽

The Impact

PurposeThis paper aims to investigate the non-financial reporting (NFR) practices of Hungarian listed public interest entities for 2016–2018 in terms of the required disclosure content based on the 2014/95/EU Directive (ED).Design/methodology/approach The authors apply content analysis methodology on Hungarian firms subject to mandatory reporting under the ED. The target variable in the multivariate model is the reporting quality (Qi) measured by a combined index.Findings The authors find that the ED had a moderate impact on Hungary's reporting quality because the overall disclosure of the sample only increased from low to medium level. The authors found that the value of intangible assets is a determinant of the reporting quality before and after the implementation of the ED. The findings support the effect of coercive isomorphism on Hungarian NFR practices.Research limitations/implications The limitation of the research is the number of firms examined. However, the authors covered the entire (non-bank) community of the Hungarian firms subject to the ED.Practical implications The authors suggest that reporting entities build upon the synergy between intellectual capital disclosure and NFR when elaborating their reporting strategies. The authors recommend the integration of ethical matters into corporate strategies and policies. Policymakers may consider the revision of the Hungarian regulations. The authors suggest academics embrace these topics in teaching.Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study that investigates the impact of ED in the context of Hungary. The authors contribute to the existing literature by adding the results of the ridge regression model, highlighting the importance of intangible assets.

Download Full-text

Recognizing Intellectual Capital in the Intangible Asset Structure of Enterprises in the Integration Period

VNU Journal of Science Economics and Business ◽

10.25073/2588-1108/vnueab.4128 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 33 (5E) ◽

Author(s):

Nguyen Hong Nga

Keyword(s):

Intellectual Capital ◽

Intangible Assets ◽

South Australia ◽

Value Theory ◽

Intangible Asset ◽

Knowledge Resources ◽

Reporting Practices ◽

Current Accounting ◽

Information Demand ◽

Integration Period

Value theory is one of the fundamental problems of economics which is applied in many different disciplines. However, the application of this economic theory in recognizing the valuation of intellectual capital of enterprises is a complex issue, especially knowledge is considered as an important form of resource and exchanged on the market. According to modern accounting theories, the accounting of intellectual capital is associated with the use of a measure of value to recognize, measure, and report on intangible assets of enterprises. However, current accounting practices do not meet the information demand of enterprise knowledge resources. This article focuses on clarifying the theoretical issues of knowledge resources in enterprises and the current state of accounting of intellectual resources in particular and intangible assets accounting in general in Vietnam in the integration period. Based on the research on content, requirements for managing knowledge resources and accounting methods, this article provides the guiding principles for the development of the accounting of intangible assets to exploit the enterprise's knowledge resources. Keywords Intellectual capital, value theory, intangible assets, enterprises References [1]. Abeysekera, I., (2003), “Intellectual accounting scorecard - Measuring and reporting Intellectual Captital”,http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1590&context=commpapers [Accessed 5 June 2017] [2]. Brennan, N. và Connell, B. (2000), “Intellectual capital: current isues and policy applications”, Intellectual Capital, 1 (3), 206-240.[3]. Đặng, Đ. S., Mariott, D. N. và Mariott, P. (2006) “Qualitative insights into the provision of financial information by small and medium companies in the transitional economy of Viet nam”. The International Conference on Accounting and Finance in Trasition, April 10-12, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.[4]. Guthrie, J. và Petty, R. (2000), “Intellectual capital review: measurement, reporting and management”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, 1 (1), 155-176. [5]. Ismail, T.H., (2008), “Intellectual Capital Reporting in Knowledge Economy: Evidence from Egypt [pdf]”, Available at: <http://www.cba.edu.kw/wtou/download/conf3/tariq.PDF> [Accessed 12 June 2017][6]. Johanson, U. (1999), “Mobilising change: characteristics of intangibles proposed by 11 Swedish firms”, the International Symposium Measuring and Reporting Intellectual Capital: Experiences, Issues, and Prospects, OECD, Amsterdam, June.[7]. Moolman, S., (2010), “Intellectual Capital : Measurement, recognition and reporting, Masters of commerce in the subject Accounting, University of South Africa [pdf]”, Available at: <http://uir.unisa.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10500/4847/dissertation_moolman_s.pdf?sequence=1> [Accessed 12 June 2017][8]. OECD (1999), “Measuring and reporting intellectual capital”, OECD Research Papers, Amsterdam.[9]. Roos, J. Roos, G. Draggonetti, N.C. và Edvinsson, I. (1997), Intellectual Capital, Macmillan Business, London.[10]. Sujan, A. and Abeysekera, I., (2007), “Intellectual capital reporting practices of the top Australian firms”, <http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1437&context=commpapers [Accessed 12 June 2017].

Download Full-text