Effects of voluntary intellectual capital disclosure for disclosing firms

Vanini, Ute; Rieg, Robert

doi:10.1108/jaar-08-2018-0116

Cited by 16 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 81 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This regulation marks an important attempt by the EU to build greater company transparency; thus, it is crucial to explore what the body of literature has uncovered and left for further investigation. As such, building on previous literature reviews in the field of SED (Parker, 2005;Dienes et al, 2016;Adams and Larrinaga, 2019;Vanini and Rieg, 2019), this paper adopts a systematic literature review in order to examine the current research contributions with regard to the EU Directive and to offer future research suggestions. This research follows Denyer and Tranfield's definition of a systematic literature review as "a specific methodology that locates existing studies, selects and evaluates contributions, analyses and synthesises data, and reports the evidence in such a way that allows reasonably clear conclusions to be reached about what is and is not known" (Denyer and Tranfield, 2009, p. 671).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Directive 2014/95/EU: building a research agenda

Korca

Costa

2021

JAAR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThis paper discusses the current state of research into Directive 2014/95/EU and non-financial disclosure (NFD), with the aim of offering a future research agenda.Design/methodology/approachThe authors have conducted a systematic literature review of 78 studies spanning seven years (2014–2020) that address Directive 2014/95/EU.FindingsThe literature review revealed four main avenues for future research. First, future studies could focus on addressing issues related to the EU Directive's potential impacts, both in terms of NFD and companies' financial performance. Second, because context plays an important role in defining the regulation's impact, future research should consider these contextual factors in NFD. Third, further research should investigate the interplay between the binding requirements of the Directive and the non-binding guidelines suggested to implement it. Finally, future research would do well to employ additional theoretical approaches in order to interpret the Directive's diverse effects for various countries, organisations and timelines.Research limitations/implicationsThis research agenda is intended to help scholars in this field to understand what has yet to be known in order to develop a complete understanding of the EU Directive on non-financial information disclosure.Practical implicationsFocussing on the Directive's implementation across countries and organisations with a longitudinal approach, this paper could indicate whether or not mandatory reporting enhances non-financial information disclosure and consequently, organisational actions. This work could inform both companies' and policymakers' approach to disclosure, whether mandatory or otherwise.Originality/valueTo date, many studies have focussed on specific issues regarding the EU Directive. This paper, however, presents the first systematic literature review considering the current state of research into the EU Directive, thus drawing a future research agenda.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Directive 2014/95/EU: building a research agenda

Korca

Costa

2021

JAAR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Given the difficulty of including these key elements in the balance sheet, companies have to find other ways to account for their intangible resources. The voluntary disclosure of intellectual capital reduces information asymmetry and improves analysts' valuation (Maaloul and Zeghal, 2016;Vanini and Rieg, 2019). This issue has been identified on the international level as a key area of research by several accounting standards setters such as the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) through its work on disclosures accompanying financial statements (IASB, 2017(IASB, , 2018, the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) with its discussion paper on business reporting of intangibles (FRC, 2019) and the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG) with its research project on better information on intangibles (2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Voluntary disclosure and intellectual capital: how CEOs mobilise discretionary accounting narratives to account for value creation stemming from intellectual capital

Albertini¹,

Berger-Remy²,

Lefrancq

et al. 2021

JAAR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThis research aims to contribute to the current discussion led by international accounting bodies on intellectual capital narratives. Before setting a standard, a preliminary step is to highlight intellectual capital components' sources of value. The objective of this exploratory paper is to contribute to the discussion by proposing a detailed description and taxonomy of intellectual capital based on an analysis of discretionary accounting narrative disclosures in CEO letters.Design/methodology/approachTo answer the research question, a computerised lexical content analysis was done of 241 letters from the CEOs of S&P Euro 350 companies addressed to shareholders.FindingsBeyond the required disclosures about balance sheet intangibles, this study brings to light discretionary narratives about human, digital, customer and environmental capital and their interactions. In particular, CEOs are promoting two new themes, environmental capital and digital capital, as major contributors to value creation.Research limitations/implicationsThe limitations of this study are inherent in the media studied, namely the CEOs' letters to shareholders, which were written as part of the firms' official communication.Practical implicationsThe main contribution of the research is a detailed description of the intellectual capital components that CEOs consider to be at the heart of their companies' models to create value. Human and customer capital were already familiar under the previous classification, but CEOs present digital and environmental capital as areas of opportunity or risk in their discretionary narratives.Originality/valueThe article contributes to the current international discussions on intellectual capital by focusing on discretionary accounting narratives. It seeks to provide guidelines concerning future standards in the current stage of intellectual capital research.

show abstract

“…They argue that the reasons for such paucity of disclosure are unclear, but need investigation. Indeed, Vanini and Rieg (2019) argue that companies: "should only engage in voluntary ICD if it really reduces information asymmetries and leads to reduced cost of capital or a better reputation" (p. 349). Whatever the reasons, it is clear that companies do not happily make all their IC publicly available.…”

Section: Individual and Organizational Perspectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

PRECEPT: a framework for ethical digital forensics investigations

Ferguson

Renaud

Wilford

et al. 2020

JIC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeCyber-enabled crimes are on the increase, and law enforcement has had to expand many of their detecting activities into the digital domain. As such, the field of digital forensics has become far more sophisticated over the years and is now able to uncover even more evidence that can be used to support prosecution of cyber criminals in a court of law. Governments, too, have embraced the ability to track suspicious individuals in the online world. Forensics investigators are driven to gather data exhaustively, being under pressure to provide law enforcement with sufficient evidence to secure a conviction.Yet, there are concerns about the ethics and justice of untrammeled investigations on a number of levels. On an organizational level, unconstrained investigations could interfere with, and damage, the organization's right to control the disclosure of their intellectual capital. On an individual level, those being investigated could easily have their legal privacy rights violated by forensics investigations. On a societal level, there might be a sense of injustice at the perceived inequality of current practice in this domain.This paper argues the need for a practical, ethically grounded approach to digital forensic investigations, one that acknowledges and respects the privacy rights of individuals and the intellectual capital disclosure rights of organizations, as well as acknowledging the needs of law enforcement. The paper derives a set of ethical guidelines, and then maps these onto a forensics investigation framework. The framework to expert review in two stages is subjected, refining the framework after each stage. The paper concludes by proposing the refined ethically grounded digital forensics investigation framework. The treatise is primarily UK based, but the concepts presented here have international relevance and applicability.Design/methodology/approachIn this paper, the lens of justice theory is used to explore the tension that exists between the needs of digital forensic investigations into cybercrimes on the one hand, and, on the other, individuals' rights to privacy and organizations' rights to control intellectual capital disclosure.FindingsThe investigation revealed a potential inequality between the practices of digital forensics investigators and the rights of other stakeholders. That being so, the need for a more ethically informed approach to digital forensics investigations, as a remedy, is highlighted and a framework proposed to provide this.Research limitations/implicationsThe proposed ethically informed framework for guiding digital forensics investigations suggests a way of re-establishing the equality of the stakeholders in this arena, and ensuring that the potential for a sense of injustice is reduced.Originality/valueJustice theory is used to highlight the difficulties in squaring the circle between the rights and expectations of all stakeholders in the digital forensics arena. The outcome is the forensics investigation guideline, PRECEpt: Privacy-Respecting EthiCal framEwork, which provides the basis for a re-aligning of the balance between the requirements and expectations of digital forensic investigators on the one hand, and individual and organizational expectations and rights, on the other.

show abstract

Effects of voluntary intellectual capital disclosure for disclosing firms

Cited by 16 publications

References 81 publications

Directive 2014/95/EU: building a research agenda

Directive 2014/95/EU: building a research agenda

Voluntary disclosure and intellectual capital: how CEOs mobilise discretionary accounting narratives to account for value creation stemming from intellectual capital

PRECEPT: a framework for ethical digital forensics investigations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About