Intellectual Capital; History, Framework,
and Disclosure
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to describe the history of emerging and developing Intellectual
Capital (IC) which is the value driver for the company's competitive advantages. In this context,
IC is presented as an integral part of Accounting discipline. IC began evolve as a study since the
late 1990s. But in fact another form of IC already been discussed since the early 1980s. a
symposium on the IC which was held in Amsterdam by the OECD to be a milestone tumuh
blossoms IC as studies in various fields of science, accounting, management, information
technology, communications, and so forth.
On the other hand, this paper also presents a study of the concepts, framework, and the
components of IC according to some experts. The views from the experts on IC is presented in
this section, such as Stewart, Bontis, Brooking, and Roos. The expert was later classifies IC into
Human Capital, Structural Capital and Relational Capital.
In the last section, this paper discusses how the disclosure of IC, which is another way of
reporting. This last section is based on empirical research conducted in European countries,
Australia, ASEAN and Indonesia. Research on IC disclosure evolved since the 2000s. Because
of the lack of standards governing the obligation to report the IC in the financial statements, the
voluntary disclosure of IC then recommended. Research on IC disclosure mostly using base data
from annual reports and company websites.
Keywords: intellectual capital, framework, IC disclosure, accounting
*) Paper ini merupakan tugas Mid Semester matakuliah Sejarah Pemikiran Akuntansi pada
program S3 Akuntansi Undip Semarang (sudah dikumpulkan pada tanggal 3 Desember 2012)
Introduction
In June 1999, Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) carried out
an International Symposium which facilitated the presentation of various studies on measuring
and reporting intangible asset, including Intellectual Capital (IC) from around the world (see:
Andriessen et al. 1999; Brennan and Connell 2000; Guthrie et al. 1999). In this forum, some
papers on IC topics was presented and discussed. This is the first forum in the world that shows
the world's attention on the phenomenon of IC.
Since 2000, researchers and practitioners have focused on the disclosure of IC in companies’
annual report. For example, Guthrie and Petty (2000) conducted a content analysis to explore the
component of IC disclosed by the top 20 Australian listed companies in their annual report. Goh
and Lim (2004) did a similar study in the context of the top 20 profit-making public listed
companies in Malaysia. Recently, Guthrie et al. (2006) provide a comparative study to examine
and compare IC disclosure practices in Hongkong and Australia.
In Indonesia, the disclosure of IC is regulated in the statement of financial accounting standard
(PSAK) 19 set by the Indonesian Financial Accounting Standard Board. It is classified as
intangible asset. Besides that, at least there are six Indonesian acts that are focused on the
component of IC. These acts are UU No. 30/2000 (trade secret), UU No. 31/2000 (industry
design), UU No. 32/2000 (integrated circuit layout design), UU No. 14/2001 (patent), UU No.
15/2001 (trademark), and UU No. 19/2002 (copyright). However, in these acts, the IC is not
defined explicitly (Ulum 2008).
According to PSAK 19, intangible assets are non-monetary assets that can be identified and has
no physical form and held for use in the produce or deliver goods or services, leased to others, or
for administrative purposes (IAI 2000). Paragraph 09 of the statement mentioned some examples
of intangible assets such as science and technology, design and implementation of new processes
or systems, licenses, intellectual property, market knowledge and trademarks (including brand of
product / brand names). It also added computer software, patents, copyrights, motion picture
films, customer lists, logging concessions, import quotas, franchises, customer or supplier
relationships, customer loyalty, marketing rights, and market share.
Although PSAK 19 (revised 2000), in which implicitly alluded IC has been introduced since
2000, but in practice the IC is still not widely known in Indonesia (Abidin 2000). According to
Abidin (2000), firms in Indonesia tend to use conventional based in building their businesses, so
that the resulting product is still poor technological content. Indonesian companies have not
paying attention to human capital, structural capital, and customer capital, which are the
elements of IC companies (Sawarjuwono and Kadir 2003).
This paper tries to discuss the history of the IC, framework, and disclosure. In the study of
history, this paper seeks to place the IC in an accounting perspective. This is important because
there are doubts among the accountants, especially the lecturers and students, who questioned the
accounting aspects of the IC.
History; an Accounting Perspective on Intellectual Capital
In the developed economies, there is a shift from the industrial economy, in which tangible
resources were dominant, to a knowledge economy, in which intellectual capital (IC) is a critical
resource and a key determinant of competitive advantage, economic success, and value creation
in firms. In the accounting field, the term intangible assets is more commonly used and refers,
like IC, to the nonphysical value drivers in organizations that represent claims to future benefits
(Lev et al. 2005).
In an industrial economy, production facilities, physical location, and efficient manufacturing
processes are the vital resources for a firm and sufficient to sustain a superior position in the
marketplace (Chandler 1980, 1994; Nakamura 2001). The booms after the two World Wars
created sellers’ markets in most of the developed countries (Marr and Spender 2004). In such a
world, traditional cost-focused reporting methods provided an adequate picture of firm
performance. However, global trade has gradually changed this toward buyers’ markets. Such
markets, when they are saturated, do not absorb all goods produced. Consumers are better
informed and more demanding, which leads to increasing innovation speed and decreasing
product life cycles. Differentiation and innovation become critical; and capabilities and assets
such as research and development (R&D), creativity, brand image, patents, and copyrights are
essential to achieving a competitive advantage. This also means that traditional cost-focused
reporting tools cannot provide the adequate information on firm performance.
The objective of financial reporting is to provide useful information for making economic
decisions on the financial position and performance of the firm, as stated by the Financial
Accounting Standards Board (FASB 1978) Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS
1, par. 34) and the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) framework for the
preparation and presentation of financial statements (IASC, International Accounting Standards
Committee, 1989 par. 12). Even though it is generally accepted that investments in intangibles
are important sources of future performance, restrictive accounting asset recognition rules mean
that most intangible assets cannot be included in the balance sheet, especially if they are
developed internally. Instead, all costs incurred to develop intangible assets usually must be
directly charged as expenses in the income statement. For companies that invest in intangibles,
this immediate expensing means that the current profit and financial position of an organization
is reduced, while future reported profits are often overstated.
A key argument against the recognition of intangible assets in balance sheets is the uncertainty of
future economic flows from such assets. As a consequence, current accounting systems are more
likely to “front-load the costs” of investing into intangibles and “delay the recognition” of its
benefits (Lev and Zarowin 1999). In the late 1980s, academics and practitioners started to raise
their concerns about this practice, arguing that if accounting rules would not adapt to the
increasing need to provide relevant information about investments in IC, accounting would lose
its relevance (e.g., Johnson and Kaplan 1987). Both the views of professional organizations and
academic research emphasized the need to adjust the existing accounting practices to provide
users the true and fair view of the firm’s financial position and performance.
One visible effect of a possible loss in relevance of accounting information was the increasing
gap between the market value and the book value of equity during the 1980s and 1990s. This
could not be explained with the contemporary earnings growth rates but was partly because
investors started to value the increasing level of investment in IC as potential sources of future
profitability (Nakamura 1999). In fact, R&D investments in the U.S. economy doubled for the
period of 1953–1997, while investment in tangible assets remained steady[1]. Even with this
increase in investments in IC as future sources of value and profit, most of them have to be
immediately expensed, thus decreasing current earnings and book value of equity. In fact, Lev
and Sougiannis (1999) confim Nakamura’s (1999) assertions that “innovative capital” is a
fundamental variable underlying the market-to-book value effect.
The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) and the Association for
Investment Management and Research (AIMR) were among the first professional associations to
express their concerns about the current financial reporting model. In 1991, the board of directors
of the AICPA established a special committee on financial reporting. After 2 years, the
committee published a summary report (AICPA 1994) warning that the existing accounting
system fails to meet the current needs of investors and creditors and a static business reporting
model without the important non-financial information will have harmful consequences (Upton
2001). The AICPA publication and a similar report published by the AIMR led the FASB to
undertake a research project focused on improving business reporting in 1998. As a result, the
FASB published several reports[2]emphasizing the importance of voluntary disclosure of
information about intangible assets. In October 2001, the FASB started a new project on the
voluntary disclosure of information on intangible assets but deactivated this project.
[1] Research and development expenditures as a proportion of nonfinancial corporate gross
domestic product increased from 1.3 for the period 1953–1959 to 2.9 for 1990-1997. Conversely,
tangible investment remained the same 12.6% over the total nonfinancial corporate gross
domestic product.
[2] The FASB published three reports as part of their project, including Improving
BusinessReporting: Insights into Enhancing Voluntary Disclosures and Business and Financial
Reporting, Challenges from the New Economy. These reports are available online at
http://www.fasb.org/brrp/BRRP2.PDF.
The concerns about the decreasing relevance of traditional accounting information quickly
surpassed the U.S. boundaries. The Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA), the
Danish Agency for Development of Trade and Industry, the Netherlands Ministry of Economic
Affairs, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the Institute of
Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW), and the Chartered Institute of
Management Accountants (CIMA) all conducted studies addressing the need to identify,
measure, and report information on intangibles that are the major value drivers in the knowledge
economy (Starovic and Marr 2003; Upton 2001).
Not only professional and regulatory bodies but also academics discussed the erosion of
relevance of published earnings information, and historical cost accounting in general, due to the
fast changes in the environment and the delayed reaction of regulators. Ely and Waymire (1999)
suggest, “Standard-setters may need to write new standards at an accelerating rate merely to
maintain the overall relevance of accounting data at the existing level.” Empirical findings of
studies in the field support this view. While Collins et al. (1997) and Francis and Schipper (1999)
did not find clear evidence on the decline in the value relevance of accounting information, Lev
and Zarowin (1999) reported a significant decline in the combined relevance of earnings and
book values.
Brown et al. (1999) showed that after controlling for the scale effects, the results in the Collins et
al. (1997) and Francis and Shipper (1999) studies support the argument of a temporal decline in
the value relevance of earnings. Lev and Zarowin (1999) clarified previous evidence showing
that the decreasing relevance was not due to the increasing number of firms in the intangibleintensive or high-tech industrial sectors, but to the rate of business change and an increasing
investment rate in R&D. This means that firms that are innovative, creative, and faced with quick
changes are those for which the current historical-cost accounting system is least suitable.
Together with evidence on the inadequacy of the reporting system for a business environment
with an increasing degree of innovation and investment in intangibles (Lev and Zarowin 1999),
an extensive body of literature has documented the positive effects of intangibles on the firm’s
future profits and market values. Not only R&D but also advertising, patents, brands, trademarks,
and human resources are important value drivers, and investors need relevant and timely
information on these value drivers to assess the economic conditions of the firm and its future
potential. Canibano et al. (2000) assert, “in order to provide the users of financial statements with
relevant information for investment and credit decisions, standard setting bodies should develop
guidelines for the identification of intangible elements, and set criteria for their valuation and
adequate standards for financial reporting.”
Intangible Assets
During this time, there is a lack of clarity the difference between intangible assets and IC.
Intangibles have been referred to as goodwill, (ASB, 1997; IASB, 2004), and the IC is part of
goodwill. Today, a number of contemporary classification schemes have attempted to identify
specific differences by separating the IC into the category of external (customer-related) capital,
internal (structural) capital, and human capital (see eg Brennan and Connell 2000; Edvinsson and
Malone 1997).
Some researchers (eg Bukh 2003) mentions that the IC and intangible assets are similar and often
interchangeable (overlap). While other researchers (eg Edvinsson and Malone 1997; Boekestein
2006) states that the IC is part of intangible assets (intangible assets). Table 1 summarizes the
comparison between the accounting standard on intangible assets.
Tabel 1. Comparison of accounting standards for intangible assets
FRS 10
Definition of
intangible assets
IAS 38
Goodwill and Intangible
Intangible Assets
Assets
Non-financial fixed assets An identifiable,
that do not have physical nonmonetary asset without
APB 17
Intangible Assets
No definition
An id
nonm
substance but are
identifiable and controlled
by the entity through
custody or legal rights
Classification of
intangibles
Recognition
Amortisation
physical substance held for
use in the production or
supply of goods or services,
for rental to others or for
administrative purposes
A category: intangible
Expending resources or
Classified on several
assets having a similar
incurring liabilities or the
different bases:
nature, function or use in acquisition, development or identifiability, manner of
the business of the entity, enhancement of intangible acquisition, expected
e.g. licences, quotas,
resources such as scientific period of benefit,
patents, copyrights,
or technical knowledge,
separability from the entire
franchises and trademarks design and implementation enterprise
of new processes or systems,
licences, intellectual
property, market knowledge
and trademarks
physi
use in
suppl
for re
admi
Scien
desig
of a n
licens
prope
and tr
brand
name
An internally developed
intangible asset may be
capitalised only if it has a
readily ascertainable
market value
Intan
recog
the co
future
the as
the as
reliab
An intangible asset should be An internally developed
recognised if: it is probable intangible asset should be
that the future economic
recognised if it:
benefits that are attributable
to the asset will flow to the (a) is specifically
enterprise; the cost of the
identifiable;
asset can be measured
reliably
(b) has a determinate life;
(c) can be separated from
the entity
Where intangible assets
The depreciable amount of Intangible assets should be
have limited useful
intangible assets should be amortised by systematic
economic lives they should allocated on a systematic
charges to income periods
be amortised on a
basis over the best estimate over the estimated time to
systematic basis over those of their useful lives
be benefited
lives. Where intangible
assets have indefinite
useful economic lives, they
should not be amortised
Source: Ulum (2009)
Intellectual Capital Framework
The a
amor
assets
syste
based
its us
usefu
asset
years
are re
Amo
assets
Interest in IC began when Tom Stewart, in June 1991, wrote an article entitled "Brain Power How Intellectual Capital Is Becoming America's Most Valuable Asset". Table 2 summarizes the
chronology of some significant contribution to the identification, measurement and reporting of
IC.
Table 2. Chronology of Significant Contribution to the identification, Measurement and
Reporting IC
Period
Progress
Early 1980s
General notion of intangible value (often generically, labelled
``goodwill'')
Mid-1980s
The ``information age'' takes hold and the gap between book value
and market value widens noticeably for many companies
Late 1980s
Early attempts by practitioner consultants to construct
statements/accounts that measure intellectual capital (Sveiby, 1988)
Early 1990s
Initiatives systematically to measure and report on company stocks
of intellectual capital to external parties (e.g. Celemi and Skandia;
SCSI, 1995)
In 1990, Skandia AFS appoints Leif Edvinsson ``Director of
intellectual capital''. This is the first time that the role of managing
intellectual capital is elevated to a position of formal status and given
an air of corporate legitimacy
Kaplan and Norton introduce the concept of a balanced scorecard
(1992). The scorecard evolved around the premise that ``what you
measure is what you get''
Mid-1990s
Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995)[6] present their highly influential work
on ``the knowledge creating company''. Although the book
concentrates on ``knowledge'', the distinction between knowledge
and intellectual capital is sufficiently fine as to make the book
relevant to those with a pure focus on intellectual capital
Celemi's Tango simulation tool is launched in 1994. Tango is the
first widely marketed product to enable executive education on the
importance of intangibles
Also in 1994, a supplement to Skandia's annual report is produced
which focuses on presenting an evaluation of the company's stock of
intellectual capital. ``Visualizing intellectual capital'' generates a
great deal of interest from other companies seeking to follow
Skandia's lead (Edvinsson, 1997)
Another sensation is caused in 1995 when Celemi uses a
``knowledge audit'' to offer a detailed assessment of the state of its
intellectual capital
Pioneers of the intellectual capital movement publish bestselling
books on the topic (Kaplan and Norton, 1996; Edvinsson and
Malone, 1997; Sveiby 1997). Edvinsson and Malone's work, in
Late 1990s
particular, is very much about the process and the ``how'' of
measuring intellectual capital
intellectual capital becomes a popular topic with researchers and
academic conferences, working papers, and other publications find
an audience
An increasing number of large-scale projects (e.g. the MERITUM
project; Danish; Stockholm) commence which aim, in part, to
introduce some academic rigour into research on intellectual capital
In 1999, the OECD convenes an international symposium in
Amsterdam on intellectual capital[1]
Source: Petty and Guthrie (2000)
[1] The symposium, Measuring and Reporting intellectual capital: Experience, Issues, and
Prospects: An International Symposium, was convened in Amsterdam on 9-11 June, 1999. Over
200 delegates from 30 countries were in attendance. Attendees included leading academics,
corporate chiefs, professional association representatives, and government policy-making
groups. The general aim of the conference was to begin considering how international guidelines
and standards of practice for the measurement and reporting of intellectual capital might be
drawn up
Stewart (1997)defines IC in his article as follows:
“The sum of everything everybody in your company knows that gives you a competitive edge in
the market place. It is intellectual material - knowledge, information, intellectual property,
experience - that can be put to use to create wealth”.
Some researchers / authors give a definition and understanding of a variety of IC. Brooking
(1996) for example, defines IC as follows:
“IC is the term given to the combined intangible assets of market, intellectual property, humancentred and infrastructure – which enable the company to function”
Roos et al. (1997)states that:
“IC includes all the processes and the assets which are not normally shown on the balance-sheet
and all the intangible assets (trademarks, patent and brands) which modern accounting methods
consider…”
While Bontis (1998) recognizes that:
“IC is elusive, but once it is discovered and exploited, it may provide an organisation with a new
resource-base from which to compete and win”
Furthermore, Edvinsson and Malone (1997) identified the IC as the value of hidden (hidden
value) of the business. The term "hidden" is used here to relate the two things. First, IC particular
intellectual assets or knowledge assets, are generally not visible like traditional assets, and
second, that such assets are usually not visible also in the financial statements. Table 3
summarizes and compares some of the concepts IC according to the researchers.
Table 3. Comparison of IC According to some researchers
Brooking (UK)
Human-centered
Roos (UK)
Human capital
Stewart (USA)
Bontis (Kanada)
Human capital Human capital
assets
Competence,
Skills, abilities and
attitude, and
intellectual agility
Employees are an The individual level
organization’s
knowledge that each
most important
employee possesses
asset
expertise, problem
solving abilities
and leadership styles
Infrastructure
Organisational
Structural capital Structural capital
assets
capital
Knowledge
Non-human assets
All the technologies,
process and
methodologies that
All organizational,
embedded in
or organizational
innovation,
information
technology
capabilities used
enable company to
function
processes,
to meet market
requirements
intellectual
Intellectual
property
Know-how,
property, and cultural
assets
Renewal and
Structural capital Intellectual
development capital All patents, plans property
and trademarks
New patents and
Unlike, IC, IP is a
training efforts
trademarks and
patents
protected asset
and has a legal
definition
Customer capital Relational capital
Market assets
Relational capital
Brands, customers,
Relationship which
customer loyalty
include internal and
external stakeholders used to capture
and retain
customers
and distribution
channels
Market
information
Customer capital
is only one feature
of the knowledge
embedded in
organizational
relationships
Source : Bontis et al. (2000)
Definitions of intellectual capital above then has led some researchers to develop specific
components of the IC. Leif Edvinsson, for example, states that the value of a company's
intellectual capital is the amount of human capital and structural capital of the company
(Edvinsson and Malone, 1997). Other researchers, such as Brinker (1998) and Skyrme and
Associates (2000) expands the categories identified by Edvinsson to include a third category,
namely customer capital. Brooking (1996) states that the IC is a function of four types of assets,
namely: (1) market assets, (2) intellectual property assets, (3) human-centered assets, and (4)
infrastructure assets.
IFAC (1998) classifies intellectual capital into three categories, namely: (1) Organizational
Capital, (2) Relational Capital, and (3) Human Capital. Organizational Capital include a)
intellectual property and b) infrastructure assets. Table 4 presents the classification of the
following components.
Table 4. Classification of Intellectual Capital by IFAC
Organizational Capital
Intellectual Property:






Patents
Copyrights
Design rights
Trade secret
Trademarks
Service marks
Relational Capital
Human Capital
Know-how
Education
Vocational
qualification
 Work-related
knowledge
 Work-related
competencies
 Entrepreneurial
spirit,



Infrastructure Assets:







Management
philosophy
Corporate culture
Management
processes
Information systems
Networking systems
Financial relations
Brands
o Customers
o Customer
loyalty
o Backlog
orders
o Company
names
o Distribution
channels
o Business
collaborations
o Licensing
agreements
o Favourable
contracts
o Franchising
agreements

innovativeness,
proactive and
reactive abilities,
changeability
Psychometric
valuation
Source: IFAC, 1998
Intellectual Capital Disclosure
The definition of IC disclosure has been debated among experts in the literature. Using a general
purpose financial statements as a basis, it can be said that disclosure of the IC as a report
intended to meet the information needs by users who can command the preparation of reports so
that they can meet all their needs Abeysekera (2006).
Guthrie and Petty (2000) does not offer a definition of IC disclosure explicitly, but they offend
the fact that the current IC disclosure provide greater benefits than in the past. Especially for
those sectors that have the characteristics of a dominant industry which then experienced
changes, such as the manufacturing sector turned into high technology, financial and insurance
services.
Most of the literature on IC in different countries, focused on IC disclosure in corporate annual
reports (Guthrie and Petty, 2000; Olsson, 2001, and Goh and Lim, 2004). Several studies attempt
to explain the differences in the level of IC disclosure in the annual report has been carried out
(Williams, 2001; Brennan, 2001; Olsson, 2001; April et al., 2003, and Bozzolon et al., 2003), but
only three of them are using statistical test (Williams 2001; Bontis 2001; Bozzolan et al. 2003).
IC disclosure level is generally assessed using content analysis of the annual report of a small
number of samples (the company).
Although still limited, studies on IC disclosure in recent years has been done in Australia,
Austria, England, Sweden, Netherlands, France, Ireland, Canada, Spain, Italy, South Africa,
Hong Kong, Malaysia, and Indonesia (Table 5). The annual report selected as the data source,
because it is easily obtained, the contents of the report has been examined by the company, and
the report is also widely distributed to the public (Campbell, 2000).
Tabel 5. Empirical Research on Intellectual Capital Disclosure
Researcher
Country
Objectives
Method
The_Danish_Trade_and_Industry_Development_CouncilDenmark The nature of IC Interview
(1997)
dan Swedia Reports
Bornemann et al. (1999)
Austria
Value of IC from Interview
stakeholders
Questionnaire
perspectives
Content analysis
Backhuijs et al. (1999)
Belanda
Framework for IC Case study
indicators
Johanson et al. (1999)
Swedia
Characteristics of Case study
intangible assets
Johanson et al. (1999)
Swedia
Achten and Walgemoed (1999)
Belanda
Measurement and Case study
management of
intangible assets
Transparency of Case study
intangible
production assets
Andriessen et al. (1999)
Belanda
Valuation of
Case study
intangible assets
Purp
orga
defin
in th
Non
a com
ente
with
com
The
intan
iden
defin
indic
Clas
intan
relat
intan
Dev
cont
the m
Asse
mea
intan
inpu
Mea
intan
form
capa
Miller et al. (1999)
Canibano et al. (1999)
Hoogendoorn et al. (1999)
Danish Agency for Trade and Industry (1999)
Guthrie et al. (1999)
Brennan (1999)
Williams (2001)
Bozzolan (2003)
April et al. (2003)
Goh and Lim (2004)
Bukh and Johanson (2003)
Guthrie et al. (2006)
White et al. (2007)
Boedi (2008)
Kanada
Measurement and Questionnaire FGDIndic
reporting of IC
Spanyol
Measurement of Case study
Indic
IC
Belanda
Development of Questionnaire
Iden
IC reporting
Interview
the c
intan
indic
Denmark Development of Case study
Mea
IC reporting
refer
the c
Australia IC disclosure
Content analysis The
Case study
repo
indu
force
Irlandia
IC disclosure
Content analysis The
repo
betw
and
Inggris
IC disclosure and Automatic word
Disc
performance
search
relat
discl
perfo
Italy
IC disclosure
Content analysis The
repo
influ
Afrika
Disclosure of IC Content analysis Freq
Selatan
elements
of IC
Malaysia IC disclosure
Content analysis The
repo
qual
quan
Denmark IC disclosure
Content analysis The
Case study
IC in
Hong Kong IC disclosure
Content analysis The
dan
repo
Australia
evid
Kon
Australia IC disclosure and IC disclosure index, Key
its key drivers
correlation
are:
firm
pres
inde
com
Indonesia IC disclosure
Content analysis IC D
repo
Ariestyowati et al. (2010)
Indonesia IC disclosure
Ulum and Widyastuti (2011)
Indonesia IC disclosure and Content analysis,
IC performance regression
Ulum (2011)
Indonesia IC disclosure
Content analysis
Ulum and Pratiwi (2012)
Indonesia IC Disclosure
Content analysis
Novianty and Ulum (2012)
Indonesia IC Disclosure
Content analysis
Ulum (2012)
Indonesia IC Framework for Literature review
Indonesian
universities
Indonesia IC Disclosure
Content analysis
Ulum and Novianty (2012)
Content analysis
Source: summarized from a number of empirical research
Content analysis is almost always used to measure the level of IC disclosure. The procedure
includes the codification of qualitative and quantitative information into predefined categories, in
order to derive patterns in the presentation and reporting of information (Guthrie and Petty
2000). This method is considered to be systematic, objective and reliable approach is to
determine the factors that affect the contents of the report are published, and can be used to
create a replicable and conclusions are correct (Guthrie and Petty 2000). However, this
conclusion would only be acceptable if the instruments and applications of this instrument
proved to be reliable (Milne and Adler, 1999). Kripendorf (1980) identified three criteria of
reliability (accuracy, ability to be replicated again, and stability), but only one study with a
content analysis of the IC (Bozzolan et al. 2003) that satisfies these criteria.
Conclusion
Based on the explanation in the previous section, I can conclude some of the following:
Disc
(item
repo
age,
indu
Disc
(item
repo
perfo
Disc
(item
repo
Disc
(item
univ
Disc
(item
univ
Dev
com
univ
Disc
(item
univ
the f
it.
1. IC is part of a field study of accounting
2. In its history, IC has begun to be discussed formally by the American Institute of
Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) and the Association for Investment Management
and Research (AIMR) in the late 1980s. IC continues to grow in the early 1990s and still
continues to be an interesting topic to date.
3. According to the experts, the IC was generally classified into three categories, ie human
capital, structuran (organizational) capital, and customer (relational) capital.
4. Because of IC is not reported in the financial statements, the IFAC recommends that IC
reported in the annual report or other media in voluntary.
5. Several studies in various countries have shown that the study of IC disclosure mostly
done with content analysis approach.
~~ooOoo~~
References
Abeysekera, I. 2006. The Project of intellectual capital disclosure: researching the research.
Journal of Intellectual Capital 7 (1):66-71.
Abidin. 2000. Upaya Mengembangkan Ukuran-ukuran Baru. Media Akuntansi, 46-47.
Achten, J. H. J., and Walgemoed. 1999. Transparency in intangible production assets. In
International Symposium Measuring and Reporting Intellectual Capital: Experiences, Issues and
Prospects. Amsterdam: OECD.
AICPA. 2012. Improving Business Reporting—A Customer Focus: Meeting the Information
Needs of Investors and Creditors; and Comprehensive Report of the Special Committee on
Financial Reporting 1994 [cited 2012]. Available from
http://www.aicpa.org/members/div/acctstd/ibr/index.htm.
Andriessen, D., M. Frijlink, I. v. Gisbergen, and J. Blom. 1999. A core competency approach to
valuing intangible assets. In International Symposium Measuring and Reporting Intellectual
Capital: Experiences, Issues and Prospects. Amsterdam: OECD.
Ariestyowati, E. Suprapti, and I. Ulum. 2010. Analisis pengaruh karakteristik perusahaan
terhadap luas pengungkapan informasi intellectual capital pada laporan tahunan perusahaan
publik di Indonesia. In Simposium Nasional Akuntansi (SNA) I Asosiasi Program Studi
Akuntansi (APSA) PTM. Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta: Asosiasi Program Studi
Akuntansi.
Backhuijs, J. B., W. G. M. Holterman, R. S. Oudman, R. P. M. Overgoor, and S. M. Zijlstra.
1999. Reporting on intangible assets. In International Symposium Measuring and Reporting
Intellectual Capital: Experiences, Issues and Prospects. Amsterdam: OECD.
Boekestein, B. 2006. The relation between intellectual capital and intangible assets of
pharmaceutical companies. Journal of Intellectual Capital 7 (2):241-253.
Bontis, N. 1998. Intellectual capital: an exploratory study that develops measures and models.
Management Decision 36 (2):63-76.
———. 2001. Assessing knowledge assets: a review of the models used to measure intellectual
capital. International Journal of Technology Management 3 (1):41-60.
Bontis, N., W. C. C. Keow, and S. Richardson. 2000. Intellectual capital and business
performance in Malaysian industries. Journal of Intellectual Capital 1 (1):85-100.
Bornemann, M., A. Knapp, U. Schneider, and K. I. Sixl. 1999. Holistic measurement of
intellectual capital. In International Symposium Measuring and Reporting Intellectual Capital:
Experiences, Issues and Prospects. Amsterdam: OECD.
Bozzolan, S., F. Favotto, and F. Ricceri. 2003. Italian annual intellectual capital disclosure; An
empirical analysis. Journal of Intellectual Capital 4 (4):543-558.
Brennan, N. 1999. Reporting and managing intellectual capital: evidence from Ireland. Paper
read at International Symposium Measuring and Reporting Intellectual Capital: Experiences,
Issues and Prospects, June, at Amsterdam.
Brennan, N., and B. Connell. 2000. Intellectual capital: current issues and policy implications.
Journal of Intellectual Capital 1 (3):206-240.
Brinker, B. 2006. Intellectual capital: Tomorrow’s asset, today’s challenge 1998 [cited
December 2006]. Available from http://www.cpavision.org/vision/wpaper05b.cfm.
Bukh, P. N. 2003. Commentary, the relevance of intellectual capital disclosure: a paradox?
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 16 (1):49-56.
Bukh, P. N., and U. Johanson. 2003. Research and knowledge interaction Guidelines for
intellectual capital reporting. Journal of Intellectual Capital 4 (4):576-587.
Canibano, L., M. García-Ayuso, and M. P. Sánchez. 2000. Accounting for Intangibles: A
Literature Review. Journal of Accounting Literature 19:102-130.
Collins, D. W., E. L. Maydew, and I. S. Weiss. 1997. Changes in the Value-Relevance of
Earnings and Book Values over the Past Forty Years. Journal of Accounting and Economics
24:39-67.
Edvinsson, L., and M. S. Malone. 1997. Intellectual Capital: Realizing Your Company’s True
Value by Finding Its Hidden Brainpower. New York: HarperCollins.
Francis, J., and K. Schipper. 1999. Have Financial Statements Lost Their Relevance? Journal of
Accounting Research 37 (2):319-352.
Goh, P. C., and K. P. Lim. 2004. Disclosing intellectual capital in company annual reports;
Evidence from Malaysia. Journal of Intellectual Capital 5 (3):500-501.
Guthrie, J., and R. Petty. 2000. Intellectual capital: Australian annual reporting practices. Journal
of Intellectual Capital 1 (3):241-251.
Guthrie, J., R. Petty, F. Ferrier, and R. Wells. 1999. There is no accounting for intellectual
capital in Australia: review of annual reporting practices and the internal measurement of
intangibles within Australian organisations. In International Symposium Measuring and
Reporting Intellectual Capital: Experiences, Issues and Prospects. Amserdam: OECD.
Guthrie, J., R. Petty, and F. Ricceri. 2006. The voluntary reporting of intellectual capital;
comparing evidence from Hong Kong and Australia. Journal of Intellectual Capital 7 (2):254271.
IAI. 2000. Standar Akuntansi Keuangan. Jakarta: PT. Salemba Empat.
IFAC, I. F. o. A. The Measurement and Management of Intellectual Capital 1998 [cited
November 2012. Available from www.ifac.org.
Johanson, U., M. Mårtensson, and M. Skoog. 1999. Measuring and managing intangibles: 11
Swedish exploratory case studies. In International Symposium Measuring and Reporting
Intellectual Capital: Experiences, Issues and Prospects. Amsterdam: OECD, 9-11 June.
Lev, B., L. Cañibano, and B. Marr. 2005. An Accounting Perspective on Intellectual Capital. In
Perspectives on Intellectual Capital, edited by B. Marr. Jordan Hill, Oxford UK: Elsevier
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Lev, B., and T. Sougiannis. 1999. The Capitalization, Amortization, and Value-Relevance of
R&D. Journal of Accounting Research 21:107-138.
Lev, B., and P. Zarowin. 1999. The Boundaries of Financial Reporting and How to Extend
Them. Journal of Accounting Research 37:353-386.
Marr, B., and J.-C. Spender. 2004. Measuring Knowledge Assets—Implications of the
Knowledge Economy for Performance Measurement. Measuring Business Excellence 8 (1):1827.
Novianty, N., and I. Ulum. 2012. Analisis Pengungkapan Intellectual Capital Pada Website
Perguruan Tinggi Muhammadiyah Di Indonesia. In Seminar Internasional & Simposium
Akuntansi Nasional 2012. Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta: Universitas Muhammadiyah
Yogyakarta.
Petty, R., and J. Guthrie. 2000. Intellectual capital literature review: measurement, reporting and
management. Journal of Intellectual Capital 1 (2):155-176.
Roos, J., G. Roos, N. C. Dragonetti, and L. Edvinsson. 1997. Intellectual Capital: Navigating in
the New Business Landscape. Houndsmills: Macmillan Business.
Sawarjuwono, T., and A. P. Kadir. 2003. Intellectual capital: perlakuan, pengukuran, dan
pelaporan (sebuah library research). Jurnal Akuntansi dan Keuangan 5 (1):35-57.
Skyrme, D., and Associates. 2006. Measuring intellectual capital – A plethora of methods 2000
[cited December 2006]. Available from http://www.skyrme.com/insights
Starovic, D., and B. Marr. 2003. Understanding Corporate Value—Measuring and Reporting
Intellectual Capital. London: CIMA.
Stewart, T. A. 1997. Intellectual Capital. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.
The_Danish_Trade_and_Industry_Development_Council. 1997. Intellectual Capital Accounts:
Reporting and Managing Intellectual Capital. Copenhagen: The Trade and Industry
Development Council.
Ulum, I. 2008. Intellectual capital and financial return of listed Indonesian banking sector. Paper
read at International Research Seminar and Exhibition, at Malang, East Java.
———. 2009. Intellectual Capital; Konsep dan Kajian Empiris. Yogyakarta: PT. Graha Ilmu.
———. 2011. Analisis Praktek Pengungkapan Informasi Intellectual Capital dalam Laporan
Tahunan Perusahaan Telekomunikasi di Indonesia. Jurnal Reviu Akuntansi dan Keuangan
(JRAK) 1 (1):49-56.
———. 2012. Konstruksi Komponen Intellectual Capital untuk Perguruan Tinggi di Indonesia.
Jurnal Reviu Akuntansi dan Keuangan 2 (2):251-262.
Ulum, I., and N. Novianty. 2012. Analisis Faktor-Faktor Yang Mempengaruhi Pengungkapan
Intellectual Capital Pada Official Websiteperguruan Tinggi Indonesia. Paper read at Simposium
Nasional Akuntansi XV, at Universitas Lambung Mangkurat Banjarmasing.
Ulum, I., and R. Y. Pratiwi. 2012. Analisis Praktik Pengungkapan Intellectual Capital Pada
Website Universitas Peraih QS-Star 2011. In Simposium Nasional Akuntansi & Bisnis.
Universitas Widyatama Bandung: Universitas Widyatama Bandung.
Ulum, I., and A. Widyastuti. 2011. Investigasi Hubungan antara Modal Intelektual dan Praktik
Pengungkapannya (IC Disclosure) dalam Laporan Tahunan Perusahaan Paper read at Seminar
Nasional, at Salatiga, Jawa Tengah.
Upton, W. S. 2001. Special Report; Business and Financial Reporting, Challenges from the New
Economy.
White, G., A. Lee, and G. Tower. 2007. Drivers of voluntary intellectual capital disclosure in
listed biotechnology companies. Journal of Intellectual Capital 8 (3):517-537.
Williams, S. M. 2001. Is a company’s intellectual capital performance and intellectual capital
disclosure practices related?: Evidence from publicly listed companies from the FTSE 100.
Journal of Intellectual Capital 2 (3):192-203.
~~ooOoo~~