The purpose of this study is to describe the history of emerging and developing Intellectual Capital (IC) which is the value driver for the company’s competitive advantages. In this context, IC is presented as an integral part of Accounting discipline. IC began evolve as a study since the late 1990s. But in fact another form of IC already been discussed since the early 1980s. a symposium on the IC which was held in Amsterdam by the OECD to be a milestone tumuh blossoms IC as studies in various fields of science, accounting, management, information technology, communications, and so forth.
On the other hand, this paper also presents a study of the concepts, framework, and the components of IC according to some experts. The views from the experts on IC is presented in this section, such as Stewart, Bontis, Brooking, and Roos. The expert was later classifies IC into Human Capital, Structural Capital and Relational Capital.
In the last section, this paper discusses how the disclosure of IC, which is another way of reporting. This last section is based on empirical research conducted in European countries, Australia, ASEAN and Indonesia. Research on IC disclosure evolved since the 2000s. Because of the lack of standards governing the obligation to report the IC in the financial statements, the voluntary disclosure of IC then recommended. Research on IC disclosure mostly using base data from annual reports and company websites.
Keywords: intellectual capital, framework, IC disclosure, accounting
*) Paper ini merupakan tugas Mid Semester matakuliah Sejarah Pemikiran Akuntansi pada program S3 Akuntansi Undip Semarang (sudah dikumpulkan pada tanggal 3 Desember 2012)
In June 1999, Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) carried out an International Symposium which facilitated the presentation of various studies on measuring and reporting intangible asset, including Intellectual Capital (IC) from around the world (see: Andriessen et al. 1999; Brennan and Connell 2000; Guthrie et al. 1999). In this forum, some papers on IC topics was presented and discussed. This is the first forum in the world that shows the world’s attention on the phenomenon of IC.
Since 2000, researchers and practitioners have focused on the disclosure of IC in companies’ annual report. For example, Guthrie and Petty (2000) conducted a content analysis to explore the component of IC disclosed by the top 20 Australian listed companies in their annual report. Goh and Lim (2004) did a similar study in the context of the top 20 profit-making public listed companies in Malaysia. Recently, Guthrie et al. (2006) provide a comparative study to examine and compare IC disclosure practices in Hongkong and Australia.
In Indonesia, the disclosure of IC is regulated in the statement of financial accounting standard (PSAK) 19 set by the Indonesian Financial Accounting Standard Board. It is classified as intangible asset. Besides that, at least there are six Indonesian acts that are focused on the component of IC. These acts are UU No. 30/2000 (trade secret), UU No. 31/2000 (industry design), UU No. 32/2000 (integrated circuit layout design), UU No. 14/2001 (patent), UU No. 15/2001 (trademark), and UU No. 19/2002 (copyright). However, in these acts, the IC is not defined explicitly (Ulum 2008).
According to PSAK 19, intangible assets are non-monetary assets that can be identified and has no physical form and held for use in the produce or deliver goods or services, leased to others, or for administrative purposes (IAI 2000). Paragraph 09 of the statement mentioned some examples of intangible assets such as science and technology, design and implementation of new processes or systems, licenses, intellectual property, market knowledge and trademarks (including brand of product / brand names). It also added computer software, patents, copyrights, motion picture films, customer lists, logging concessions, import quotas, franchises, customer or supplier relationships, customer loyalty, marketing rights, and market share.
Although PSAK 19 (revised 2000), in which implicitly alluded IC has been introduced since 2000, but in practice the IC is still not widely known in Indonesia (Abidin 2000). According to Abidin (2000), firms in Indonesia tend to use conventional based in building their businesses, so that the resulting product is still poor technological content. Indonesian companies have not paying attention to human capital, structural capital, and customer capital, which are the elements of IC companies (Sawarjuwono and Kadir 2003).
This paper tries to discuss the history of the IC, framework, and disclosure. In the study of history, this paper seeks to place the IC in an accounting perspective. This is important because there are doubts among the accountants, especially the lecturers and students, who questioned the accounting aspects of the IC.
History; an Accounting Perspective on Intellectual Capital
In the developed economies, there is a shift from the industrial economy, in which tangible resources were dominant, to a knowledge economy, in which intellectual capital (IC) is a critical resource and a key determinant of competitive advantage, economic success, and value creation in firms. In the accounting field, the term intangible assets is more commonly used and refers, like IC, to the nonphysical value drivers in organizations that represent claims to future benefits (Lev et al. 2005).
In an industrial economy, production facilities, physical location, and efficient manufacturing processes are the vital resources for a firm and sufficient to sustain a superior position in the marketplace (Chandler 1980, 1994; Nakamura 2001). The booms after the two World Wars created sellers’ markets in most of the developed countries (Marr and Spender 2004). In such a world, traditional cost-focused reporting methods provided an adequate picture of firm performance. However, global trade has gradually changed this toward buyers’ markets. Such markets, when they are saturated, do not absorb all goods produced. Consumers are better informed and more demanding, which leads to increasing innovation speed and decreasing product life cycles. Differentiation and innovation become critical; and capabilities and assets such as research and development (R&D), creativity, brand image, patents, and copyrights are essential to achieving a competitive advantage. This also means that traditional cost-focused reporting tools cannot provide the adequate information on firm performance.
The objective of financial reporting is to provide useful information for making economic decisions on the financial position and performance of the firm, as stated by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB 1978) Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS 1, par. 34) and the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) framework for the preparation and presentation of financial statements (IASC, International Accounting Standards Committee, 1989 par. 12). Even though it is generally accepted that investments in intangibles are important sources of future performance, restrictive accounting asset recognition rules mean that most intangible assets cannot be included in the balance sheet, especially if they are developed internally. Instead, all costs incurred to develop intangible assets usually must be directly charged as expenses in the income statement. For companies that invest in intangibles, this immediate expensing means that the current profit and financial position of an organization is reduced, while future reported profits are often overstated.
A key argument against the recognition of intangible assets in balance sheets is the uncertainty of future economic flows from such assets. As a consequence, current accounting systems are more likely to “front-load the costs” of investing into intangibles and “delay the recognition” of its benefits (Lev and Zarowin 1999). In the late 1980s, academics and practitioners started to raise their concerns about this practice, arguing that if accounting rules would not adapt to the increasing need to provide relevant information about investments in IC, accounting would lose its relevance (e.g., Johnson and Kaplan 1987). Both the views of professional organizations and academic research emphasized the need to adjust the existing accounting practices to provide users the true and fair view of the firm’s financial position and performance.
One visible effect of a possible loss in relevance of accounting information was the increasing gap between the market value and the book value of equity during the 1980s and 1990s. This could not be explained with the contemporary earnings growth rates but was partly because investors started to value the increasing level of investment in IC as potential sources of future profitability (Nakamura 1999). In fact, R&D investments in the U.S. economy doubled for the period of 1953–1997, while investment in tangible assets remained steady. Even with this increase in investments in IC as future sources of value and proﬁt, most of them have to be immediately expensed, thus decreasing current earnings and book value of equity. In fact, Lev and Sougiannis (1999) confim Nakamura’s (1999) assertions that “innovative capital” is a fundamental variable underlying the market-to-book value effect.
The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) and the Association for Investment Management and Research (AIMR) were among the first professional associations to express their concerns about the current financial reporting model. In 1991, the board of directors of the AICPA established a special committee on financial reporting. After 2 years, the committee published a summary report (AICPA 1994) warning that the existing accounting system fails to meet the current needs of investors and creditors and a static business reporting model without the important non-financial information will have harmful consequences (Upton 2001). The AICPA publication and a similar report published by the AIMR led the FASB to undertake a research project focused on improving business reporting in 1998. As a result, the FASB published several reportsemphasizing the importance of voluntary disclosure of information about intangible assets. In October 2001, the FASB started a new project on the voluntary disclosure of information on intangible assets but deactivated this project.
 Research and development expenditures as a proportion of nonﬁnancial corporate gross domestic product increased from 1.3 for the period 1953–1959 to 2.9 for 1990-1997. Conversely, tangible investment remained the same 12.6% over the total nonfinancial corporate gross domestic product.
 The FASB published three reports as part of their project, including Improving BusinessReporting: Insights into Enhancing Voluntary Disclosures and Business and Financial Reporting, Challenges from the New Economy. These reports are available online at http://www.fasb.org/brrp/BRRP2.PDF.
The concerns about the decreasing relevance of traditional accounting information quickly surpassed the U.S. boundaries. The Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA), the Danish Agency for Development of Trade and Industry, the Netherlands Ministry of Economic Affairs, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW), and the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants (CIMA) all conducted studies addressing the need to identify, measure, and report information on intangibles that are the major value drivers in the knowledge economy (Starovic and Marr 2003; Upton 2001).
Not only professional and regulatory bodies but also academics discussed the erosion of relevance of published earnings information, and historical cost accounting in general, due to the fast changes in the environment and the delayed reaction of regulators. Ely and Waymire (1999) suggest, “Standard-setters may need to write new standards at an accelerating rate merely to maintain the overall relevance of accounting data at the existing level.” Empirical findings of studies in the field support this view. While Collins et al. (1997) and Francis and Schipper (1999) did not find clear evidence on the decline in the value relevance of accounting information, Lev and Zarowin (1999) reported a significant decline in the combined relevance of earnings and book values.
Brown et al. (1999) showed that after controlling for the scale effects, the results in the Collins et al. (1997) and Francis and Shipper (1999) studies support the argument of a temporal decline in the value relevance of earnings. Lev and Zarowin (1999) clariﬁed previous evidence showing that the decreasing relevance was not due to the increasing number of ﬁrms in the intangible-intensive or high-tech industrial sectors, but to the rate of business change and an increasing investment rate in R&D. This means that firms that are innovative, creative, and faced with quick changes are those for which the current historical-cost accounting system is least suitable.
Together with evidence on the inadequacy of the reporting system for a business environment with an increasing degree of innovation and investment in intangibles (Lev and Zarowin 1999), an extensive body of literature has documented the positive effects of intangibles on the firm’s future profits and market values. Not only R&D but also advertising, patents, brands, trademarks, and human resources are important value drivers, and investors need relevant and timely information on these value drivers to assess the economic conditions of the firm and its future potential. Canibano et al. (2000) assert, “in order to provide the users of financial statements with relevant information for investment and credit decisions, standard setting bodies should develop guidelines for the identification of intangible elements, and set criteria for their valuation and adequate standards for financial reporting.”
During this time, there is a lack of clarity the difference between intangible assets and IC. Intangibles have been referred to as goodwill, (ASB, 1997; IASB, 2004), and the IC is part of goodwill. Today, a number of contemporary classification schemes have attempted to identify specific differences by separating the IC into the category of external (customer-related) capital, internal (structural) capital, and human capital (see eg Brennan and Connell 2000; Edvinsson and Malone 1997).
Some researchers (eg Bukh 2003) mentions that the IC and intangible assets are similar and often interchangeable (overlap). While other researchers (eg Edvinsson and Malone 1997; Boekestein 2006) states that the IC is part of intangible assets (intangible assets). Table 1 summarizes the comparison between the accounting standard on intangible assets.
Tabel 1. Comparison of accounting standards for intangible assets
Goodwill and Intangible Assets
|Definition of intangible assets||Non-financial fixed assets that do not have physical substance but are identifiable and controlled by the entity through custody or legal rights||An identifiable, nonmonetary asset without physical substance held for use in the production or supply of goods or services, for rental to others or for administrative purposes||No definition||An identifiable, nonmonetary asset without physical substance held for use in the production or supply of goods or services, for rental to others or for administrative purposes|
|Classification of intangibles
|A category: intangible assets having a similar nature, function or use in the business of the entity, e.g. licences, quotas, patents, copyrights, franchises and trademarks||Expending resources or incurring liabilities or the acquisition, development or enhancement of intangible resources such as scientific or technical knowledge, design and implementation of new processes or systems, licences, intellectual property, market knowledge and trademarks||Classified on several different bases: identifiability, manner of acquisition, expected period of benefit, separability from the entire enterprise||Science and technology, design and implementation of a new system or process, licensing, intellectual property, market knowledge and trademarks (including brand of product / brand names).|
An internally developed intangible asset may be capitalised only if it has a readily ascertainable market value
An intangible asset should be recognised if: it is probable that the future economic benefits that are attributable to the asset will flow to the enterprise; the cost of the asset can be measured reliably
An internally developed intangible asset should be recognised if it:
(a) is specifically identifiable;
(b) has a determinate life;
(c) can be separated from the entity
Intangible assets are recognized if, and only if (a) the company will most likely future economic benefit of the assets, and (b) the cost of the asset can be measured reliably.
|Amortisation||Where intangible assets have limited useful economic lives they should be amortised on a systematic basis over those lives. Where intangible assets have indefinite useful economic lives, they should not be amortised||The depreciable amount of intangible assets should be allocated on a systematic basis over the best estimate of their useful lives||Intangible assets should be amortised by systematic charges to income periods over the estimated time to be benefited||The amount can be amortized from intangible assets should be systematically allocated based on the best estimate of its useful life. In general, the useful life of an intangible asset will not exceed 20 years from the date the assets are ready to use. Amortisation is calculated as assets must be ready for use.|
Intellectual Capital Framework
Interest in IC began when Tom Stewart, in June 1991, wrote an article entitled “Brain Power – How Intellectual Capital Is Becoming America’s Most Valuable Asset”. Table 2 summarizes the chronology of some significant contribution to the identification, measurement and reporting of IC.
|Early 1980s||General notion of intangible value (often generically, labelled “goodwill”)|
|Mid-1980s||The “information age” takes hold and the gap between book value and market value widens noticeably for many companies|
|Late 1980s||Early attempts by practitioner consultants to construct statements/accounts that measure intellectual capital (Sveiby, 1988)|
|Early 1990s||Initiatives systematically to measure and report on company stocks of intellectual capital to external parties (e.g. Celemi and Skandia; SCSI, 1995)|
|In 1990, Skandia AFS appoints Leif Edvinsson “Director of intellectual capital”. This is the first time that the role of managing intellectual capital is elevated to a position of formal status and given an air of corporate legitimacy|
|Kaplan and Norton introduce the concept of a balanced scorecard (1992). The scorecard evolved around the premise that “what you measure is what you get”|
|Mid-1990s||Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) present their highly influential work on “the knowledge creating company”. Although the book concentrates on “knowledge”, the distinction between knowledge and intellectual capital is sufficiently fine as to make the book relevant to those with a pure focus on intellectual capital|
|Celemi’s Tango simulation tool is launched in 1994. Tango is the first widely marketed product to enable executive education on the importance of intangibles|
|Also in 1994, a supplement to Skandia’s annual report is produced which focuses on presenting an evaluation of the company’s stock of intellectual capital. “Visualizing intellectual capital” generates a great deal of interest from other companies seeking to follow Skandia’s lead (Edvinsson, 1997)|
|Another sensation is caused in 1995 when Celemi uses a “knowledge audit” to offer a detailed assessment of the state of its intellectual capital|
|Pioneers of the intellectual capital movement publish bestselling books on the topic (Kaplan and Norton, 1996; Edvinsson and Malone, 1997; Sveiby 1997). Edvinsson and Malone’s work, in particular, is very much about the process and the “how” of measuring intellectual capital|
|Late 1990s||intellectual capital becomes a popular topic with researchers and academic conferences, working papers, and other publications find an audience|
|An increasing number of large-scale projects (e.g. the MERITUM project; Danish; Stockholm) commence which aim, in part, to introduce some academic rigour into research on intellectual capital|
|In 1999, the OECD convenes an international symposium in Amsterdam on intellectual capital|
Source: Petty and Guthrie (2000)
 The symposium, Measuring and Reporting intellectual capital: Experience, Issues, and Prospects: An International Symposium, was convened in Amsterdam on 9-11 June, 1999. Over 200 delegates from 30 countries were in attendance. Attendees included leading academics, corporate chiefs, professional association representatives, and government policy-making groups. The general aim of the conference was to begin considering how international guidelines and standards of practice for the measurement and reporting of intellectual capital might be drawn up
Stewart (1997)defines IC in his article as follows:
“The sum of everything everybody in your company knows that gives you a competitive edge in the market place. It is intellectual material – knowledge, information, intellectual property, experience – that can be put to use to create wealth”.
Some researchers / authors give a definition and understanding of a variety of IC. Brooking (1996) for example, defines IC as follows:
“IC is the term given to the combined intangible assets of market, intellectual property, human-centred and infrastructure – which enable the company to function”
Roos et al. (1997)states that:
“IC includes all the processes and the assets which are not normally shown on the balance-sheet and all the intangible assets (trademarks, patent and brands) which modern accounting methods consider…”
While Bontis (1998) recognizes that:
“IC is elusive, but once it is discovered and exploited, it may provide an organisation with a new resource-base from which to compete and win”
Furthermore, Edvinsson and Malone (1997) identified the IC as the value of hidden (hidden value) of the business. The term “hidden” is used here to relate the two things. First, IC particular intellectual assets or knowledge assets, are generally not visible like traditional assets, and second, that such assets are usually not visible also in the financial statements. Table 3 summarizes and compares some of the concepts IC according to the researchers.
Table 3. Comparison of IC According to some researchers
Skills, abilities and
expertise, problem solving abilities
and leadership styles
attitude, and intellectual agility
Employees are an organization’s most important asset
The individual level knowledge that each employee possesses
All the technologies, process and methodologies that
enable company to function
property, and cultural assets
to meet market requirements
trademarks and patents
New patents and training efforts
All patents, plans and trademarks
Unlike, IC, IP is a
and has a legal definition
and distribution channels
include internal and external stakeholders
used to capture and retain customers
is only one feature
of the knowledge
Source : Bontis et al. (2000)
Definitions of intellectual capital above then has led some researchers to develop specific components of the IC. Leif Edvinsson, for example, states that the value of a company’s intellectual capital is the amount of human capital and structural capital of the company (Edvinsson and Malone, 1997). Other researchers, such as Brinker (1998) and Skyrme and Associates (2000) expands the categories identified by Edvinsson to include a third category, namely customer capital. Brooking (1996) states that the IC is a function of four types of assets, namely: (1) market assets, (2) intellectual property assets, (3) human-centered assets, and (4) infrastructure assets.
IFAC (1998) classifies intellectual capital into three categories, namely: (1) Organizational Capital, (2) Relational Capital, and (3) Human Capital. Organizational Capital include a) intellectual property and b) infrastructure assets. Table 4 presents the classification of the following components.
Table 4. Classification of Intellectual Capital by IFAC
Source: IFAC, 1998
Intellectual Capital Disclosure
The definition of IC disclosure has been debated among experts in the literature. Using a general purpose financial statements as a basis, it can be said that disclosure of the IC as a report intended to meet the information needs by users who can command the preparation of reports so that they can meet all their needs Abeysekera (2006).
Guthrie and Petty (2000) does not offer a definition of IC disclosure explicitly, but they offend the fact that the current IC disclosure provide greater benefits than in the past. Especially for those sectors that have the characteristics of a dominant industry which then experienced changes, such as the manufacturing sector turned into high technology, financial and insurance services.
Most of the literature on IC in different countries, focused on IC disclosure in corporate annual reports (Guthrie and Petty, 2000; Olsson, 2001, and Goh and Lim, 2004). Several studies attempt to explain the differences in the level of IC disclosure in the annual report has been carried out (Williams, 2001; Brennan, 2001; Olsson, 2001; April et al., 2003, and Bozzolon et al., 2003), but only three of them are using statistical test (Williams 2001; Bontis 2001; Bozzolan et al. 2003). IC disclosure level is generally assessed using content analysis of the annual report of a small number of samples (the company).
Although still limited, studies on IC disclosure in recent years has been done in Australia, Austria, England, Sweden, Netherlands, France, Ireland, Canada, Spain, Italy, South Africa, Hong Kong, Malaysia, and Indonesia (Table 5). The annual report selected as the data source, because it is easily obtained, the contents of the report has been examined by the company, and the report is also widely distributed to the public (Campbell, 2000).
Tabel 5. Empirical Research on Intellectual Capital Disclosure
Field of Study
|The_Danish_Trade_and_Industry_Development_Council (1997)||Denmark dan Swedia||The nature of IC Reports||Interview||Purpose, content, impact, organization and definitions are included in the accounts of IC.|
|Bornemann et al. (1999)||Austria||Value of IC from stakeholders perspectives||Interview Questionnaire Content analysis||Non-financial measures, a comparison of small enterprises in Austria with international companies.|
|Backhuijs et al. (1999)||Belanda||Framework for IC indicators||Case study||The significance of intangible assets, the identification and definition for the indicator.|
|Johanson et al. (1999)||Swedia||Characteristics of intangible assets||Case study||Classification of intangible assets, the relationship between intangible assets.|
|Johanson et al. (1999)||Swedia||Measurement and management of intangible assets||Case study||Development, objectives, content and outcome of the measurement system.|
|Achten and Walgemoed (1999)||Belanda||Transparency of intangible production assets||Case study||Asset identification and measurement of intangible production input|
|Andriessen et al. (1999)||Belanda||Valuation of intangible assets||Case study||Measurement of intangible assets in the form of future earnings capacity|
|Miller et al. (1999)||Kanada||Measurement and reporting of IC||Questionnaire FGD||Indicators of IC|
|Canibano et al. (1999)||Spanyol||Measurement of IC||Case study||Indicators of IC|
|Hoogendoorn et al. (1999)||Belanda||Development of IC reporting||Questionnaire Interview||Identification of the IC, the calculation of intangible assets, IC indicators|
|Danish Agency for Trade and Industry (1999)||Denmark||Development of IC reporting||Case study||Measurement of IC, reference (guidelines) for the company|
|Guthrie et al. (1999)||Australia||IC disclosure||Content analysis Case study||The contents of the IC reporting, the role of industry as a driving force for the IC|
|Brennan (1999)||Irlandia||IC disclosure||Content analysis||The contents of the report IC, comparison between market value and book value|
|Williams (2001)||Inggris||IC disclosure and performance||Automatic word search||Disclosure index, relationship between IC disclosure and performance|
|Bozzolan (2003)||Italy||IC disclosure||Content analysis||The contents of the IC reporting, the factors that influence.|
|April et al. (2003)||Afrika Selatan||Disclosure of IC elements||Content analysis||Frequency of disclosure of IC elements|
|Goh and Lim (2004)||Malaysia||IC disclosure||Content analysis||The contents of the report IC, both qualitative and quantitative|
|Bukh and Johanson (2003)||Denmark||IC disclosure||Content analysis Case study||The contents of reporting IC in IPO|
|Guthrie et al. (2006)||Hong Kong dan Australia||IC disclosure||Content analysis||The contents of the report IC, comparing evidence from Hong Kong and Australia|
|White et al. (2007)||Australia||IC disclosure and its key drivers||IC disclosure index, correlation||Key driver IC disclosure are: firm age, leverage, firm size, and the presence of an independent commissioner.|
|Boedi (2008)||Indonesia||IC disclosure||Content analysis||IC Disclosure in annual reports|
|Ariestyowati et al. (2010)||Indonesia||IC disclosure||Content analysis||Disclosure of category (items) IC in the annual report and its key drivers: age, size, type of industry, and leverage.|
|Ulum and Widyastuti (2011)||Indonesia||IC disclosure and IC performance||Content analysis, regression||Disclosure of category (items) of IC in annual reports and IC performance (VAIC)|
|Ulum (2011)||Indonesia||IC disclosure||Content analysis||Disclosure of category (items) of IC in annual reports|
|Ulum and Pratiwi (2012)||Indonesia||IC Disclosure||Content analysis||Disclosure of category (items) of IC in universities website|
|Novianty and Ulum (2012)||Indonesia||IC Disclosure||Content analysis||Disclosure of category (items) of IC in universities website|
|Ulum (2012)||Indonesia||IC Framework for Indonesian universities||Literature review||Development of the components (new) IC for universities in Indonesia|
|Ulum and Novianty (2012)||Indonesia||IC Disclosure||Content analysis||Disclosure of category (items) IC in the universities website and the factors that influence it.|
Source: summarized from a number of empirical research
Content analysis is almost always used to measure the level of IC disclosure. The procedure includes the codification of qualitative and quantitative information into predefined categories, in order to derive patterns in the presentation and reporting of information (Guthrie and Petty 2000). This method is considered to be systematic, objective and reliable approach is to determine the factors that affect the contents of the report are published, and can be used to create a replicable and conclusions are correct (Guthrie and Petty 2000). However, this conclusion would only be acceptable if the instruments and applications of this instrument proved to be reliable (Milne and Adler, 1999). Kripendorf (1980) identified three criteria of reliability (accuracy, ability to be replicated again, and stability), but only one study with a content analysis of the IC (Bozzolan et al. 2003) that satisfies these criteria.
Based on the explanation in the previous section, I can conclude some of the following:
- IC is part of a field study of accounting
- In its history, IC has begun to be discussed formally by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) and the Association for Investment Management and Research (AIMR) in the late 1980s. IC continues to grow in the early 1990s and still continues to be an interesting topic to date.
- According to the experts, the IC was generally classified into three categories, ie human capital, structuran (organizational) capital, and customer (relational) capital.
- Because of IC is not reported in the financial statements, the IFAC recommends that IC reported in the annual report or other media in voluntary.
- Several studies in various countries have shown that the study of IC disclosure mostly done with content analysis approach.
Abeysekera, I. 2006. The Project of intellectual capital disclosure: researching the research. Journal of Intellectual Capital 7 (1):66-71.
Abidin. 2000. Upaya Mengembangkan Ukuran-ukuran Baru. Media Akuntansi, 46-47.
Achten, J. H. J., and Walgemoed. 1999. Transparency in intangible production assets. In International Symposium Measuring and Reporting Intellectual Capital: Experiences, Issues and Prospects. Amsterdam: OECD.
AICPA. 2012. Improving Business Reporting—A Customer Focus: Meeting the Information Needs of Investors and Creditors; and Comprehensive Report of the Special Committee on Financial Reporting 1994 [cited 2012]. Available from http://www.aicpa.org/members/div/acctstd/ibr/index.htm.
Andriessen, D., M. Frijlink, I. v. Gisbergen, and J. Blom. 1999. A core competency approach to valuing intangible assets. In International Symposium Measuring and Reporting Intellectual Capital: Experiences, Issues and Prospects. Amsterdam: OECD.
Ariestyowati, E. Suprapti, and I. Ulum. 2010. Analisis pengaruh karakteristik perusahaan terhadap luas pengungkapan informasi intellectual capital pada laporan tahunan perusahaan publik di Indonesia. In Simposium Nasional Akuntansi (SNA) I Asosiasi Program Studi Akuntansi (APSA) PTM. Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta: Asosiasi Program Studi Akuntansi.
Backhuijs, J. B., W. G. M. Holterman, R. S. Oudman, R. P. M. Overgoor, and S. M. Zijlstra. 1999. Reporting on intangible assets. In International Symposium Measuring and Reporting Intellectual Capital: Experiences, Issues and Prospects. Amsterdam: OECD.
Boekestein, B. 2006. The relation between intellectual capital and intangible assets of pharmaceutical companies. Journal of Intellectual Capital 7 (2):241-253.
Bontis, N. 1998. Intellectual capital: an exploratory study that develops measures and models. Management Decision 36 (2):63-76.
———. 2001. Assessing knowledge assets: a review of the models used to measure intellectual capital. International Journal of Technology Management 3 (1):41-60.
Bontis, N., W. C. C. Keow, and S. Richardson. 2000. Intellectual capital and business performance in Malaysian industries. Journal of Intellectual Capital 1 (1):85-100.
Bornemann, M., A. Knapp, U. Schneider, and K. I. Sixl. 1999. Holistic measurement of intellectual capital. In International Symposium Measuring and Reporting Intellectual Capital: Experiences, Issues and Prospects. Amsterdam: OECD.
Bozzolan, S., F. Favotto, and F. Ricceri. 2003. Italian annual intellectual capital disclosure; An empirical analysis. Journal of Intellectual Capital 4 (4):543-558.
Brennan, N. 1999. Reporting and managing intellectual capital: evidence from Ireland. Paper read at International Symposium Measuring and Reporting Intellectual Capital: Experiences, Issues and Prospects, June, at Amsterdam.
Brennan, N., and B. Connell. 2000. Intellectual capital: current issues and policy implications. Journal of Intellectual Capital 1 (3):206-240.
Brinker, B. 2006. Intellectual capital: Tomorrow’s asset, today’s challenge 1998 [cited December 2006]. Available from http://www.cpavision.org/vision/wpaper05b.cfm.
Bukh, P. N. 2003. Commentary, the relevance of intellectual capital disclosure: a paradox? Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 16 (1):49-56.
Bukh, P. N., and U. Johanson. 2003. Research and knowledge interaction Guidelines for intellectual capital reporting. Journal of Intellectual Capital 4 (4):576-587.
Canibano, L., M. García-Ayuso, and M. P. Sánchez. 2000. Accounting for Intangibles: A Literature Review. Journal of Accounting Literature 19:102-130.
Collins, D. W., E. L. Maydew, and I. S. Weiss. 1997. Changes in the Value-Relevance of Earnings and Book Values over the Past Forty Years. Journal of Accounting and Economics 24:39-67.
Edvinsson, L., and M. S. Malone. 1997. Intellectual Capital: Realizing Your Company’s True Value by Finding Its Hidden Brainpower. New York: HarperCollins.
Francis, J., and K. Schipper. 1999. Have Financial Statements Lost Their Relevance? Journal of Accounting Research 37 (2):319-352.
Goh, P. C., and K. P. Lim. 2004. Disclosing intellectual capital in company annual reports; Evidence from Malaysia. Journal of Intellectual Capital 5 (3):500-501.
Guthrie, J., and R. Petty. 2000. Intellectual capital: Australian annual reporting practices. Journal of Intellectual Capital 1 (3):241-251.
Guthrie, J., R. Petty, F. Ferrier, and R. Wells. 1999. There is no accounting for intellectual capital in Australia: review of annual reporting practices and the internal measurement of intangibles within Australian organisations. In International Symposium Measuring and Reporting Intellectual Capital: Experiences, Issues and Prospects. Amserdam: OECD.
Guthrie, J., R. Petty, and F. Ricceri. 2006. The voluntary reporting of intellectual capital; comparing evidence from Hong Kong and Australia. Journal of Intellectual Capital 7 (2):254-271.
IAI. 2000. Standar Akuntansi Keuangan. Jakarta: PT. Salemba Empat.
IFAC, I. F. o. A. The Measurement and Management of Intellectual Capital 1998 [cited November 2012. Available from www.ifac.org.
Johanson, U., M. Mårtensson, and M. Skoog. 1999. Measuring and managing intangibles: 11 Swedish exploratory case studies. In International Symposium Measuring and Reporting Intellectual Capital: Experiences, Issues and Prospects. Amsterdam: OECD, 9-11 June.
Lev, B., L. Cañibano, and B. Marr. 2005. An Accounting Perspective on Intellectual Capital. In Perspectives on Intellectual Capital, edited by B. Marr. Jordan Hill, Oxford UK: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.
Lev, B., and T. Sougiannis. 1999. The Capitalization, Amortization, and Value-Relevance of R&D. Journal of Accounting Research 21:107-138.
Lev, B., and P. Zarowin. 1999. The Boundaries of Financial Reporting and How to Extend Them. Journal of Accounting Research 37:353-386.
Marr, B., and J.-C. Spender. 2004. Measuring Knowledge Assets—Implications of the Knowledge Economy for Performance Measurement. Measuring Business Excellence 8 (1):18-27.
Novianty, N., and I. Ulum. 2012. Analisis Pengungkapan Intellectual Capital Pada Website Perguruan Tinggi Muhammadiyah Di Indonesia. In Seminar Internasional & Simposium Akuntansi Nasional 2012. Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta: Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta.
Petty, R., and J. Guthrie. 2000. Intellectual capital literature review: measurement, reporting and management. Journal of Intellectual Capital 1 (2):155-176.
Roos, J., G. Roos, N. C. Dragonetti, and L. Edvinsson. 1997. Intellectual Capital: Navigating in the New Business Landscape. Houndsmills: Macmillan Business.
Sawarjuwono, T., and A. P. Kadir. 2003. Intellectual capital: perlakuan, pengukuran, dan pelaporan (sebuah library research). Jurnal Akuntansi dan Keuangan 5 (1):35-57.
Skyrme, D., and Associates. 2006. Measuring intellectual capital – A plethora of methods 2000 [cited December 2006]. Available from http://www.skyrme.com/insights
Starovic, D., and B. Marr. 2003. Understanding Corporate Value—Measuring and Reporting Intellectual Capital. London: CIMA.
Stewart, T. A. 1997. Intellectual Capital. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.
The_Danish_Trade_and_Industry_Development_Council. 1997. Intellectual Capital Accounts: Reporting and Managing Intellectual Capital. Copenhagen: The Trade and Industry Development Council.
Ulum, I. 2008. Intellectual capital and financial return of listed Indonesian banking sector. Paper read at International Research Seminar and Exhibition, at Malang, East Java.
———. 2009. Intellectual Capital; Konsep dan Kajian Empiris. Yogyakarta: PT. Graha Ilmu.
———. 2011. Analisis Praktek Pengungkapan Informasi Intellectual Capital dalam Laporan Tahunan Perusahaan Telekomunikasi di Indonesia. Jurnal Reviu Akuntansi dan Keuangan (JRAK) 1 (1):49-56.
———. 2012. Konstruksi Komponen Intellectual Capital untuk Perguruan Tinggi di Indonesia. Jurnal Reviu Akuntansi dan Keuangan 2 (2):251-262.
Ulum, I., and N. Novianty. 2012. Analisis Faktor-Faktor Yang Mempengaruhi Pengungkapan Intellectual Capital Pada Official Websiteperguruan Tinggi Indonesia. Paper read at Simposium Nasional Akuntansi XV, at Universitas Lambung Mangkurat Banjarmasing.
Ulum, I., and R. Y. Pratiwi. 2012. Analisis Praktik Pengungkapan Intellectual Capital Pada Website Universitas Peraih QS-Star 2011. In Simposium Nasional Akuntansi & Bisnis. Universitas Widyatama Bandung: Universitas Widyatama Bandung.
Ulum, I., and A. Widyastuti. 2011. Investigasi Hubungan antara Modal Intelektual dan Praktik Pengungkapannya (IC Disclosure) dalam Laporan Tahunan Perusahaan Paper read at Seminar Nasional, at Salatiga, Jawa Tengah.
Upton, W. S. 2001. Special Report; Business and Financial Reporting, Challenges from the New Economy.
White, G., A. Lee, and G. Tower. 2007. Drivers of voluntary intellectual capital disclosure in listed biotechnology companies. Journal of Intellectual Capital 8 (3):517-537.
Williams, S. M. 2001. Is a company’s intellectual capital performance and intellectual capital disclosure practices related?: Evidence from publicly listed companies from the FTSE 100. Journal of Intellectual Capital 2 (3):192-203.