Search results

If we cannot explain goodwill and potential goodwill in asset terms, they do not make sense. A partial explanation can be found in human assets or employee artefacts. A balance sheet model including employee artefacts is illustrated, and the consequences on the balance sheet and related financial key ratios are substantial. The inclusion of employee artefacts on the balance sheet (1) seems to make sense, (2) but it is still unclear if the inclusion will make organizations “better.” Even though the development of the balance sheet model is done in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, it seems to (3) challenge the (elite) social order in organizations.

The purpose of this paper is to draw on the literature debating research policy, research and the role of researchers, in discussing a single researcher's (Jan‐Erik Gröjer's) research during the 1980s and 1990s.

Jan‐Erik Gröjer's publications during the period are compared with different research modes 1 and 2, communalism, universalism, disinterestedness, originality and scepticism and PLACE within this polarized world, i.e. between demands from different research ideologies universities as well as individual researchers perform their research.

This paper can be read as both a contribution to the debate about the researcher's role and as a tribute to a friend who was able to investigate and practise different roles: normative and critical, theoretical and applied and provocative and humble, to name a few.

Further case studies of single researchers could serve as a valuable input to the discussion of different research ideologies.

The paper could be used in, e.g., doctoral student education when discussing the researcher's role but also when discussing the role of university research in general.

The used research modes have not before been analyzed using a single researcher as a case. It could be useful for individual researchers as well as in discussions about management of universities.

The purpose of this paper is to pay tribute to several of the ideas of Jan‐Erik Gröjer by reviewing and critiquing the field of Human Competence Accounting (HCA) since his Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal review article in 1998.Three research questions he posed in that article are now addressed in the current paper: What could be done, as envisaged in the commentary of Gröjer and Johanson; What has been published in HCA research in the ten year period (1999‐2008); What more could/should be done in HCA as a research agenda.

A literature based analysis and critique of HCA accounting articles published in the selected journals from 1999 to 2008 is employed. A purpose built coding and classification scheme is built around several categories for the purpose of analysing the HCA literature.

The paper seeks to demonstrate the importance of Gröjer and Johanson's review and indicates that questions they raised and possible research directions have been acted upon by a number of authors. The findings of the analysis indicate that, a decade on from the original review, HCA is a legitimate area for accounting research and is multi‐disciplinary and multi‐focused in nature.

The paper only considers selected HCA articles within the ten journals used over the period 1999‐2008.American mainstream positivist research has not been reviewed. Also the categories chosen to represent HCA have several limitations which are addressed in the paper.

HCA research has a strong tradition and the Gröjer and Johanson review is an important beacon that provided insights to accounting researchers. The current analysis extends Jan‐Erik's work by providing several insights into what has happened and also provides several ideas for future research and policy work in accounting for HCA.

The purpose of the paper is to reflect on how sensegiving cues are encapsulated in models of reporting for human resources. This has been by investigating elements, arguments and formats of the models.

This paper focuses on the three discourses of human resource reporting that Jan‐Erik Gröjer is a part of. This paper is an appreciation of the importance of Jan‐Erik's work in the field of human resource communication as well as an illustration of how ideas and models changes over time.

The paper concludes that: there is no coherent idea of how sensegiving should be made in order to affect the sensemaking processes of human resources, the models emanate from different forms of critiques and the sensegiving cues change accordingly, and accounting for human resources has an ethical dimension.

The choice of model for reporting on human resources affects not only the content of the human resource report (the what and how question), but also affected by which arguments are considered as most efficient in the sensegiving process..

The paper contributes to the understanding of how sensemaking is dependent on which sensegiving cues bring forward in the accounts of human accounts.

The paper sets out to identify the key role that Jan‐Erik Grojer's work on human resource costing and accounting played in linking initial developments in accounting for people with the more recent advances associated with the emergence of the intellectual capital concept.

The paper is in the form of an essay that briefly considers the history of approaches to the challenge of accounting for people.

The recent developments associated with intellectual capital highlight the importance and value of adopting a rather wider conception of accounting for people.

The paper provides a provocative introduction to the topic of accounting for people and as such may be of value to both newcomers to the field and those who are simply intrigued by the idea itself.

The purpose of this paper is seek to analyze how models emanating from the managerial discourse of intellectual capital (IC) relate to how firms disclose IC in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards Business Combinations (IFRS3) in financial statements.

A qualitative and quantitative analysis of the purchase analyses disclosed by Swedish listed companies in their financial statements during the first year of application of IFRS3 is conducted.

Five main findings result from this investigation. First, the relevance of IC in business combination is confirmed. Second, only a few intangibles are specifically identified and most of them are included within goodwill. Third, a large variety of labels are used when disclosing intangibles. Fourth, synergies represent the most frequent explanation of the goodwill generated by the business combination. Finally, the models examined for guiding firms' reporting on intangibles in the annual report need to be further developed.

The research is an investigation of the first year of application of a new accounting principle which underlies the analysis of intangibles and which represent an opportunity to concretely apply the otherwise mainly theoretical studies carried out by the IC community.

The purpose of this paper is to elaborate the feasibility of market based estimations of the value of human capital in firms.

The concept of intangible assets and market‐based valuation of human capital is presented. Cases of extreme estimates of human capital values are presented. The possibility of extremely low or even negative human capital values is examined.

It is demonstrated that odd human capital values can be explained by referring to principles of valuating fixed assets and intangible liability.

The paper demonstrates that market‐based methods for estimating the value of human capital of the firm can be feasible despite the existence of very odd human capital values.

The findings of the paper adds to the discussion of how to valuate human capital in intellectual capital accounts in general and human capital accounts in particular.

Human resource costing and accounting (HRCA) is a complex and poorly understood process of accounting. The behavioural impact of HRCA, the many diverging internal forces of an organization, the increasing need of information from the capital market and action from organizations, such as the organization for the economic co‐operation and development (OECD) and European commission (EC), are all part of this accounting change process. With Sweden as a starting point, forces stimulating and inhibiting the development of HRCA are discussed. The main conclusion is that the actual state of things (reality) provides more research opportunities today than in the 1970s. But where are the researchers?

This study aims to follow the development of human intellectual capital indicators over a six‐year period and to bring forward the production, transmission and reception of indicators in order to interpret the ambitions and technological and programmatic properties that characterize the development of the indicators. The case builds around an organization that collects human resource data from various organizations and redistributes indicators for benchmarking purposes.

The paper is based on a case, complemented with a survey. The design of the study is labeled as a case story, since it does not emphasize the organization itself, but rather the empirical material is analyzed to illustrate the production, transmission and reception of human capital measurements. The study thus follows the evolution of indicators in an organization specializing in human intellectual capital indicators.

The main conclusion of the study is that indicators may legitimize, serve as a heuristic tool for learning or mobilize the organization. The paper also suggests that human intellectual capital indicators may be produced, transmitted and received differently in relation to their technological and programmatic logics.

The study suggests that there is a need to develop a theory of indicators.

By emphasizing that not all that gets measured gets managed the paper's classification makes it possible to understand how indicators may contribute to the organization in different ways.