Explaining the demise of the intellectual capital statement in Denmark

Abstract

Purpose-This paper provides an overview of the Danish Guideline Project and its subsequent fate within participating companies since its conclusion in late 2002. Particular focus is placed on the traction that the Intellectual Capital Statement approach to reporting, as the principal outcome of the project, was able to acquire in practice. Design/methodology/approach-Following the reconstruction of the original sample of 102 companies that originally participated in the project, a survey using semi-structured interviews was pursued among 64 individuals who were identified as having some involvement with the guideline project and/or producing intellectual capital statements in these companies. In addition to the interviews, a range of secondary information has been used to supplement the primary data and research protocol. Findings-The project was found to have enjoyed only modest success and thereby failed to achieve any substantial traction among the participating companies and related public stakeholders. On balance, however, respondents believed that the exercise had been a positive experience, with benefits for the internal management of the companies, as well as for human capital (employees). The obstacles that radical initiatives such as the Intellectual Capital Statement continue to face should not be underestimated. Research limitations/implications-A single study of a specific initiative necessarily entails many limitations. It is conceivable that the views of some of the participants in the guideline project who are absent from the present sample may provide details of a different experience, although it is unlikely that these would seriously challenge the findings reported here. Originality/value-This study is the first to explore the fate of the critically acclaimed Intellectual Capital Statement approach among companies participating in the Danish Guideline Project.

Moving from irrelevant intellectual capital (IC) reporting to value-relevant IC disclosures

“…A recent study by Nielsen et al (2016b) neither confirmed nor affirmed whether the IC report should be a separate report or be integrated with other forms of voluntary reporting in the annual report. Indeed, the opinions in this regard, including in the present sample, were more or less equally split.…”

Lessons for progressing narrative reporting: Learning from the experience of disseminating the Danish Intellectual Capital Statement approach

“…Of these only 18 remained with their employers as between 1997-2002, while 14 had only had some involvement with ICS activity after 2002. Overall, given the technical difficulties entailed constructing such a sample, a notional 63% response rate is adjudged a considerable achievement (see Nielsen et al, (2017) for a fuller exposition of the broader research project).…”

“…Initially it might be recalled that their paper, written as an early contribution to the embryonic critical accounting research literature, was itself focused on "corporate accounting reports", which we understand would encompass both IR and the ICS. By contrast, a labour process perspective would not seem to offer the appropriate purchase, being concerned with how accounting, and management accounting in particular, is principally implicated in the social organisation of work (Roslender, 2017). A second alternative, in the guise of Critical Theory, is arguably more relevant to understanding the potential of more radical forms of 'accounting' such as intellectual (human) capital self-accounts, as characterised by Fincham (2001, 2004; see also Roslender et al, 2015).…”

“…To date there has been no previous study of how the ICS fared during this period. A study of those companies that participated in the DGP initiative indicated that it had been at best only a very modest success, with only a small number of companies persevering with the ICS approach (see Nielsen et al, 2016Nielsen et al, , 2017Schaper, 2016). Our explanation is framed in the spirit of the political economy of accounting (PEA), as outlined in the seminal paper by Cooper and Sherer (1984), and is intended to be understood as a contribution to the tradition of critical accounting research.…”

“…Beyond this set of critical perspectives there is a further number of framing theories, including structuration theory, governmentality theory and actor network theory, whose critical designation continues to be hotly debated. Their utility for this particular paper is regarded as being extremely limited, although appropriate for other enquiries, as is evident in Nielsen et al (2017).…”