Search

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of the Danish Guideline Project (DGP) 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 (ICS) 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 ICSs 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 ICS 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 ICS approach among companies participating in the DGP.

Purpose– Dumay and Garanina (2013) asserted that, even though intellectual capital (IC) researchers would like to continue developing new models, existing models seem to not be used in practice. Nielsenet al.(in press) discovered that almost all companies that were originally involved in the Danish project of guidelines for intellectual capital statements (ICS) have abandoned their work with ICS a few years after the project ended. The purpose of this paper is to inquire the underlying reasons and conditions that drove these organisations to stop using the acquired framework.Design/methodology/approach– This study is based on both survey and in-depth interview data from key employees of 58 organisations. Qualitative content analysis employing thematic coding is used to crystallise aspects among the provided reasons, to categorise them, and to investigate possible relations. Results are interpreted through a conceptual framework containing elements diffusion theory, management fashion and fads theory and lifecycles as well as implementation failure of knowledge management (KM) techniques.Findings– A multitude of reasons and conditions are discovered as having affected companies’ decisions to interrupt their ICS practices. Underlying aspects principally refer to deliberately taken decisions but also to a substantial number of exogenous factors and conditions. Their common denominator is identified in the low perceived value of ICS, both internally from a KM perspective and externally in relation to the disclosure practice. This leads to the conclusion that ICS can be considered a hierarchically diffused management fashion whose implementation within these companies failed, and its lifecycle subsequently ended with rejection.Research limitations/implications– This study is limited due to the particular composition of the selected research sample, which, together with the qualitative nature of the research, restricts the possibility of any generalisations of the results to the broader field of IC and extra-financial reporting.Originality/value– It represents a large-scale attempt to directly investigate organisations’ and managers’ reluctances towards ICS measuring and reporting, its perceived value, and the failure of its persistent implementation.

Purpose Informed by the findings of a follow-up research study of companies originally involved in the Danish Guideline Project (DGP) for intellectual capital statements (ICS), the purpose of this paper is to provide valuable insights for a potential shift from intellectual capital (IC) reporting, largely informed by an accounting perspective, towards IC-related disclosures. Design/methodology/approach The paper draws on data obtained from 21 semi-structured interviews with respondents in 16 companies. The respondents were contacted following a genealogical exercise carried out on the 102 companies involved in the DGP between 1999 and 2003. Findings The interviews suggested a rather critical perspective towards IC reporting using the ICS framework. Despite the attempt of the DGP to establish a reporting standard, a range of experiments resulted in changes to the framework’s original structure. Overall, a trend towards more integrated forms of reporting was discernible, in some part being motivated by the need to reduce the levels of reporting overload. Examples of integration designed to legitimise IC or corporate social responsibility reports, involving issuing them in tandem with a recognised reporting vehicle such as the annual report, were also encountered. Research limitations/implications The implications of this study are that timely, value-relevant IC disclosures and compliant reporting, primarily for accountability purposes, have the potential to coexist. In addition to the usual limitations of a semi-structured interview research design, respondents’ difficulties in clearly recalling events during the project after some 10-12 years is a further potential limitation. Additionally, the use of internet-based communication channels for disclosure purposes was in its infancy at the time of the DGP. Originality/value The paper provides important insights into the mechanisms of IC disclosure and IC reporting as seen from a practitioner perspective. Implications relevant to the continued development of integrated reporting are also identified.

The Danish Guideline Project and its principal output, the intellectual capital statement, have attracted only a very limited extent of empirical attention since the conclusion of the initiative in December 2002. The paper reports the findings of a series of semi-structured interviews with individuals employed in the small subset of companies that were found to have persevered with intellectual capital reporting during most of the following decade. Interviews explored three themes: motivations for initiating intellectual capital reporting; reasons for continuing to do so; and details of the implementation and evolution of these practices. The paper utilises a number of elements of institutional theory to organise the findings and to discuss the continuities in intellectual capital reporting practice documented therein.