Disclosure on Intellectual Capital in Annual Reports of Nasdaq Omx Baltic-Listed Companies

Ramanauskaitė, Agnė; Laginauskaitė, Marija Rita

doi:10.15388/ekon.2014.93.5044

Cited by 7 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 26 publications

(15 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Many studies have reported an increase in disclosure over a period; however, overall low levels of ICD were found in Spain (Ordóñez de Pablos, 2003;Oliveras and Kasperskaya, 2008). Ramanauskaitė and Laginauskaitė (2014) reported an increase in disclosure in Baltic countries. In contrast, Ramanauskaite and Rudzioniene (2013) studied firms in Lithuania and found that the level of disclosure decreased over the period of study.…”

Section: Review Of Literature and Hypothesis Developmentmentioning

confidence: 98%

Determinants of intellectual capital disclosure: evidence from India

Kamath

2017

JFRA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This paper aims at exploring the extent and determinants of intellectual capital disclosure (ICD) in India. Design/methodology/approach Content of annual reports of 200 firms classified on their market capitalization is analysed using search terms to find out the extent and nature of disclosure. The period of study is 2010-11 and 2013-14. Paired t-test is used to see if there is any significant change in the level of disclosure between two time periods. The various determinants and their impacts are captured using a regression equation. Findings The analysis showed evidence that market capitalization, ownership and age of the firms are the major determinants of ICD in India. Performance, size and type of industry mattered only for large-cap firms. Disclosure levels are seen to increase with market capitalization. Human capital and external capital is highly reported by all categories of firms. The overall disclosure by all categories has significantly increased, whereas that of human capital and external capital has increased significantly only in small-cap and mid-cap firms. Originality/value This paper looks at size, market and performance-related variables and their impact on the extent of disclosure. It takes representative firms from three indices based on their market capitalization and evaluates them, thus making results and findings reliable. This is the first paper which takes a large cross section sample from across 12 sectors and also performs a longitudinal analysis. This paper is of interest to managers of firms who can affect the policies of their firms in making robust changes in disclosure practices.

show abstract

Section: Review Of Literature and Hypothesis Developmentmentioning

confidence: 98%

Determinants of intellectual capital disclosure: evidence from India

Kamath

2017

JFRA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Abeysekera (2008) published similar results when comparing the level of disclosure in Sri Lanka and Singapore. Ramanauskaite and Laginauskaite (2014) revealed that Lithuanian companies are superior in disclosing IC information when compared to the Estonian and Latvian in annual reports of Nasdaq OMX Baltic-listed companies. Most recently, an investigation into Australian and Sir Lankan firms indicated that external structure disclosures were most common among Austrian firms, while intellectual property disclosures were more preferable by Sri Lankan larger firms (Pratheepkanth, 2018).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Untitled

2019

IRMM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines the level and quality of the disclosures of intellectual capital (IC) by listed companies in Jordan as a case for emerging economies, especially those from Arab nations. Using content analysis, 2016's annual reports of all 215 listed companies on the Amman Stock Exchange (ASE) were analyzed and compared for the main sectors: Financial, service and manufacturing. The key findings indicate a low disclosure level of IC. The most disclosed components of IC were the items of internal capital. Financial companies were found to disclose the most items, followed by manufacturing firms and finally the service sector. This research has implications for policy makers and standard setters regarding mechanisms to boost the practice of IC disclosure in annual reports. This in turn enhances the quality of disclosed information as well as facilitating a better assessment of firm value. This research fills a void in the comparative study of IC disclosure practices among main sectors in the ASE, Jordan.

show abstract

“…Another line of research transversally analyzes this type of disclosure, reviewing content by country, for example, Guthrie and Petty (2000) for Australian companies; Bontis (2002) for Canadian companies; Abeysekera and Guthrie (2005) for companies in developed countries compared with non-developed countries; An and Davey (2010), who provide evidence regarding the low level of IAD in a large number of Chinese listed companies that nevertheless exhibit a strong commitment in the manner in which they publicly disclose this information; Joshi et al (2012) for information technology companies in India and Australia; Ramanauskakité and Laginauskaité (2014) for the Baltic states of Lithuania and Estonia; Bianchi et al (2016) for France, Germany, Italy, and the UK; Catalfo and Wulf (2016) for Italy and Germany; Razak et al (2016) for Saudi Arabia; Wang et al (2016) for China and India; and finally, Pisano et al (2017) for European non-financial firms listed on the Italian, French and German stock exchanges.…”

Section: Intangible Asset Disclosures: State Of the Artmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…First, in relation to the pursued objectives, we must note that content analysis is used in all cases to understand the extent of the IAD activities performed by companies both at a specific time and throughout a period of no longer than three years (Vamdemaele et al , 2005; Castelo et al , 2010; Abdifatah and Mubaraq, 2012; De Silva et al , 2014; Ramanauskakité and Laginauskaité, 2014; Saitua et al , 2014; Ruiz-Rodríguez, 2016). This confirms the most commonly used technique to determine the amount of information disclosed regarding intangible assets but simultaneously demonstrates that the quality of such disclosures does not appear to be a research objective, thus presenting a future line of analysis, as presaged by Guthrie and Abeysekera (2006).…”

Section: Approaching Iad In Content Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Among other variables present in the reviewed studies is country, for example, selecting samples from two or more countries (Abeysekera, 2008; Guthrie et al , 2006; Mahesh et al , 2012, Liao et al , 2013; Ramanauskakité and Laginauskaité, 2014; Catalfo and Wulf, 2016; Wang et al , 2016) or, by contrast, focusing exclusively on the country of origin of their authors: Germany (Goebel, 2015), Spain (Saitua et al, 2014), the UK (Bini et al, 2016), France (Boujelbene and Affes, 2013), Portugal (Pinho et al , 2013) and Taiwan (Long et al, 2012), among other countries.…”

Section: Approaching Iad In Content Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Content analysis within intangible assets disclosure: a structured literature review

Polo

Ruiz-Rodríguez

2017

JIC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose In this paper, the authors analyze the use of content analysis in disclosing voluntarily information on intangible assets, the intangible assets disclosures (IAD). The purpose of this paper is to conduct a structured literature review (SLR) that assesses the possibilities and limitations of content analysis. Design/methodology/approach To that end, the authors analyze the existing literature on the topic in the main international databases. In all, 74 empirical articles utilizing content analysis as a research methodology for IAD were reviewed. Regarding the selection of sources, the authors should indicate that the SLR performed includes academic studies published in journals or presented at conferences and that are always subject to a double process of anonymous review. Findings The obtained results indicate that despite the frequent use of content analysis in studies on IAD, its use does not meet all expectations. Research limitations/implications The study synthesizes the research on content analysis for the case of information on intangible assets, offering an updated and global framework for future researchers through the SLR. Practical implications Among other problems, the authors found its excessive emphasis on the amount disclosed in the annual report, ignoring other reports in which more information regarding intangible assets is available, such as in the case of the sustainability reports. Furthermore, the use of very different coding systems and its exclusive use without being combined with other methodologies are detected. These aspects affect the quality problems of the sources used, which directly results in the utility of the evidenced findings. Social implications These conclusions allow the authors to conclude on the need to open different lines of study that review the use of content analysis in this topic. Originality/value The work focuses on the quality of disclosures more so than on the quantity, offering a critical view that summarizes the utility of the employment of content analysis for this type of disclosure and its implications for future research on this topic. Despite previous studies, the authors highlight the new insights revealed from IAD research, especially since the seminal paper of Dumay and Cai (2014).

show abstract

Disclosure on Intellectual Capital in Annual Reports of Nasdaq Omx Baltic-Listed Companies

Cited by 7 publications

References 26 publications

Determinants of intellectual capital disclosure: evidence from India

Determinants of intellectual capital disclosure: evidence from India

Untitled

Content analysis within intangible assets disclosure: a structured literature review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About