Intellectual capital disclosure (ICD)

Abstract

Purpose To explore the hypothesis that differences in intellectual capital disclosure (ICD) practices can be explained, if in part, by industrial sector (traditional; knowledge intensive) and nationality of origin (Italy; UK). Design/methodology/approach Content analysis of the annual reports of two reasonably matched samples of both high‐technology and traditional non‐financial firms in Italy and the UK. Univariate and multivariate analyses are then used to test the hypothesis proposed. Findings Size and industrial sector are found to be predictors of levels of ICD; the hypothesis relating nationality of origin to ICD is not supported. Research limitations/implications The main limitation relates to sample size due to the onerous nature of this form of research. Further research following this matched‐sample methodology should attempt to maximise sample sizes allowing for the incorporation of more specific nationally of origin factors. Practical implications Owing to the increasing importance of intangibles and intellectual capital, how these are reported is of interest to a large range of stakeholders. There is, as yet, no universally accepted form, or indeed regulation, of ICD. Originality/value The matched‐sample methodology on international ICD comparison expands on extant approaches.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 158 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.