Search

In the last two decades, Intellectual Capital (IC) reporting has experienced a “rise and fall” process. More in depth, after the initial academic and professional enthusiasm, several scholars and practitioners have raised questions about whether IC was something relevant or just a managerial fashion. Some recent studies have investigated the reasons underlying the demise of the IC reports (Chiucchi and Giuliani, 2017; Chiucchi, et al., 2016, 2018; Giuliani and Chiucchi, 2019; Nielsen, et al., 2017; Tee Jeok Inn, et al., 2015). Some argue that a relevant issue to understand if a business reporting practice will be adopted and maintained or rejected is trust (Chaidali and Jones, 2017). In fact, as the implementation of a new business reporting practice is subject to managerial discretion, it is important to focus on preparers' trust in the “new” reporting tool. The purpose of this paper is to analyse the IC reporting experience to understand the role of trust in determining the parabola experienced by IC reporting. In other words, the study aims to understand whether and how the IC reporting issues managed to gain and, in several cases, lose the trust of the preparers’. In order to achieve this aim, the results of an exploratory field study conducted through semi-structured interviews referred to Italian companies will be presented. The social theory of trust (Sztompka, 1999) will be used to understand how the trust on IC reporting was built by the Italian IC scholars and practitioners involved in the field and why it remained or faded over time. This paper contributes to the existing literature answering the call for more follow up studies about IC reporting. Consequently, this paper contributes to the understanding of the reasons underlying the rise and fall of IC reporting and the future of IC research. In addition, the results achieved can contribute to understanding to what extent trust can influence the “fate” of a business reporting initiative. In comparison to the extant studies, this study is not focused on single or few cases but it offers insights collected from several organisations in order to have a broader view of the IC experience. In addition, by adopting a longitudinal perspective, from the first implementation up to date, our research does not offer a “snapshot”, i.e. referred to a specific moment, of the role played in taking up and in continuing or abandoning these practices. Finally, the Italian case, which presents some peculiarities if compared, for example, to the Danish one, offers also the possibility to identify different levers/obstacles related to the different genesis of the adoptions of IC reports. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this study is to investigate the subjective-side of Intellectual Capital (IC), i.e. who measures and manages IC. More in depth, we examine how the "actors on the scene", such as the "project sponsor" and the "project leader", behave with reference to an IC measurement project. We will also examine the role played by another actor so far remained "behind the scene": the external partner (e.g. consultants, university researchers, etc.). In order to achieve this aim the results of an exploratory field study (Roslender and Hart, 2003, Lillis and Mundy, 2005) referred to Italian companies that adopted an IC report will be presented. The main findings are the following. First, it emerges that the project sponsor is the main actor that determines the success or the failure of the project. Second, the project leader is the one that shapes and "operationalizes" the theoretical concept of IC adopted by the project sponsor in order to make it applicable. Third, the sensemaking processes related to IC tends to be limited to the sponsor and the leader. This implies that IC tends to remain a "private business", something reserved to an élite that tend to disappear when the elite quits or changes. Forth, when the CFO/controller adopts a traditional accounting approach (i.e. "bean counter") rather than a business analyst approach, the IC project tends to fail and to be considered only as an "accounting matter" and not as a managerial matter. Fifth, the role of the consultant seems to determinant in the sensemaking, legitimization and implementation processes of the IC project. Our study adds to IC literature by showing, from a practice-based perspective, the roles played by the project sponsors and of the project leaders in different organizations and how external partners are, in several cases, the "deus ex machina" of the projects, i.e. they are determinant in the decision to undertake these projects, in their accomplishment, prosecution and abandonment. In particular, it emerges that external partners have a key role in the IC sensegiving and sensemaking processes: their specialization influence the way IC is perceived within the company and the fate of the IC report, i.e. in determining the success or the failure of the IC projects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the last two decades, scholars, practitioners and governments have underlined the relevance of reporting intellectual capital (IC). Analysing the evolution of IC research (Guthrie et al., 2012, Petty and Guthrie, 2000) and considering the fact that some "IC pioneers" companies, like Skandia, have abandoned IC reporting, a recent stream has underlined the need to investigate the use of IC reports "in practice" (Dumay, 2013, Guthrie et al., 2012, Mouritsen, 2006) in order to understand if IC reporting is something relevant or just a managerial fashion (Dumay, 2012a, Mouritsen and Roslender, 2009, Fincham and Roslender, 2003). Moving from these considerations, the aim of our study is to explore if, how and why IC reports are used by companies and if, how and why IC measurement and reporting practices do (or do not) stabilize. In order to achieve this aim, a field study approach has been adopted (Roslender and Hart, 2003, Kaplan, 1986, Scapens, 1990). The paper discusses some preliminary findings which extend extant knowledge on IC measurements and contributes to reduce the gap between theory and practice. More specifically, the paper highlights how the IC report is frequently a 'personal business', delves into the relationship with the social report and other company reports, discusses the determining role of some 'key' actors (i.e. project sponsors, project leaders, controllers) in affecting if and which kind of evolutions IC reports may undergo. Further, the paper sheds light on the IC 'lock-in' phenomenon in the accounting or in other domains. Finally it contributes to confirm the fragility of IC indicators. Differently from the majority of extant studies, this one is not focused only on the production of IC measurements and reports or on their peculiarities but also on their use. Moreover, it is not focused on a specific moment but adopts a longitudinal perspective. Finally, this paper in not centred on a single case study but offers insights collected from several organisations in order to have a broader view on IC in practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]