Search results

The purpose of this paper is to review, critique and develop a research agenda for the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM). The model was introduced by Petty and Cacioppo over three decades ago and has been modified, revised and extended. Given modern communication contexts, it is appropriate to question the model’s validity and relevance.

The authors develop a conceptual approach, based on a fully comprehensive and extensive review and critique of ELM and its development since its inception.

This paper focuses on major issues concerning the ELM. These include model assumptions and its descriptive nature; continuum questions, multi-channel processing and mediating variables before turning to the need to replicate the ELM and to offer recommendations for its future development.

This paper offers a series of questions in terms of research implications. These include whether ELM could or should be replicated, its extension, a greater conceptualization of argument quality, an explanation of movement along the continuum and between central and peripheral routes to persuasion, or to use new methodologies and technologies to help better understanding consume thinking and behaviour? All these relate to the current need to explore the relevance of ELM in a more modern context.

It is time to question the validity and relevance of the ELM. The diversity of on- and off-line media options and the variants of consumer choice raise significant issues.

While the ELM model continues to be widely cited and taught as one of the major cornerstones of persuasion, questions are raised concerning its relevance and validity in 21st century communication contexts.

The authors expect major shifts in thinking about the transnational regulation of accounting and how it will develop. This is a time for ideas as well as action. The global accounting profession must take a leading role in developing and presenting the case for the transnational regulation of accounting, in identifying new regulations, new ways of regulating, and new compacts between regulators and other stakeholders, and in framing the debate on the transnational regulation of accounting into the future. The academic community must bring intellectual rigor to thinking on the issues. The purpose of this paper is to put the case that there is a new research agenda to be formed by taking a view that combines existing work on the transnational regulation of accounting with a contemporaneous understanding of the forces for regulatory and professional change, and insight into the roles that various actors have assumed historically and will likely play going forward, so as to develop workable and sustainable models for the transnational regulation of accounting into the future.

This paper presents a view on why the transnational regulation of accounting is increasingly becoming more important and more relevant. The paper identifies several possible work streams and research questions, and also comments on the papers appearing in this AAAJ special issue.

The authors find that the transnational regulation of accounting is becoming more important and relevant and identify drivers of this. The authors also suggest that self-regulation comes from professionalization, that systems of professional self-regulation (or co-regulation) at the national level have been transformed into the systems of global self-regulation. Also there is a growing level of scholarly engagement with transnational regimes of accounting regulation and the emerging portrayal of such regimes as arenas characterized by multiple actors, agendas, and strategies of influence.

Promotes a greater awareness and understanding of the importance of the transnational regulation of accounting, showcases recent work that demonstrates the breadth and depth of what is being done and of what needs to be done in the transnational regulation of accounting, identifies some of the key issues and imperatives for the transnational regulation of accounting.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the voluntary reporting of intellectual capital (IC) by listed companies in Australia and Hong Kong and to evaluate size, industry and time effects on IC disclosure levels.

The study is an empirical one conducted in two stages. Stage one is an exploratory study of voluntary IC disclosure for the 20 largest listed Australian companies in 1998. Stage two, using 2002 data, examines voluntary disclosure of IC attributes for 50 listed entities in Australia and 100 in Hong Kong. Content analysis is used to collect data.

Levels of voluntary IC disclosure are found to be low and in qualitative rather than quantitative form in both locations. Disclosure level is positively related to company size, a finding that is consistent with the previous literature on voluntary reporting.

External validity may be compromised somewhat by the relatively small sample size. Managers are not observed in the process of making decisions, so management intent is inferred.

Documenting variations in types of reporting and in reporting frequency enables a greater understanding of why some companies voluntarily report whilst others do not. Such an understanding holds the potential to guide policy‐makers, creditors and investors in giving prescriptions to firms over whom they have control or with whom they have dealings.

This study is the first to comparatively examine the voluntary reporting of IC in a longitudinal setting using Australasian data.

There are two aims of this introductory article: first, to draw attention to the gaps in the research literature; and second to stimulate further accounting and management research regarding intellectual capital by posing several possible research questions. Suggests that critical and social accounting academics have a vital role to play in making visible a number of important social issues that stem from understanding better the value of intellectual capital within both organisations and the wider social fabric. Also looks to possible new ways of accounting for intangibles within public and private sector organisations.

The rise of the “new economy”, one principally driven by information and knowledge, is attributed to the increased prominence of intellectual capital (IC) as a business and research topic. Intellectual capital is implicated in recent economic, managerial, technological, and sociological developments in a manner previously unknown and largely unforeseen. Whether these developments are viewed through the filter of the information society, the knowledge‐based economy, the network society, or innovation, there is much to support the assertion that IC is instrumental in the determination of enterprise value and national economic performance. First, we seek to review some of the most significant extant literature on intellectual capital and its developed path. The emphasis is on important theoretical and empirical contributions relating to the measurement and reporting of intellectual capital. The second part of this paper identifies possible future research issues into the nature, impact and value of intellectual management and reporting.

This study reports the results of an empirical examination of Australian annual reporting of intellectual capital. The findings suggest that the development of a model for reporting intangibles is piecemeal and not widely spread. The outcomes of our exploratory investigation are threefold. First, the key components of intellectual capital are poorly understood, inadequately identified, inefficiently managed, and not reported within a consistent framework when reported at all. Second, the main areas of intellectual capital reporting focus on human resources; technology and intellectual property rights; and organisational and workplace structure. Third, even in an Australian enterprise thought of as “best practice” in this regard, a comprehensive management framework for intellectual capital is yet to be developed, especially for collecting and reporting intellectual capital formation. In conclusion, Australian companies do not compare favourably with several European firms in their ability to measure and report their intellectual capital in the annual report.

The purpose of this paper is to offer an empirical account of how a group of financial professionals uses intellectual capital (IC) information, and the value that the group imputes to IC reporting. The paper also aims to understand the group's ability to privately access information that might help them determine the value of a company's IC in support of their decision‐making.

Survey administered to a group of financial professionals in Hong Kong.

Respondents would like companies to be more transparent and provide more information on their IC. Respondents believe that greater IC disclosure would be rewarded with an increase in the company's share price – even though few respondents thought that they would pay more themselves for enhanced disclosure. Further, most respondents seem to be currently addressing their IC information needs through private information channels, and rate the publicly provided information as poorly suited to their needs.

Greater regulatory control may be needed to ensure that information being communicated privately also enters the public domain in a timely fashion. It is also suggested that making market participants more aware of the positive effects of voluntary disclosure on stock prices may lead to an increase in voluntary disclosure.

The paper provides empirical evidence on the value relevance of IC information from a user's perspective.

To date, managing intellectual capital has focussed on maximising possibilities to create knowledge, while minimising chances of losing knowledge. However, effective intellectual capital management should consider another dimension: orphan knowledge. Orphan knowledge relates to questions such as: Do organisations “unlearn” things or forget things and repeat past mistakes? Do some organisations unnecessarily duplicate equivalent activities within different areas of the organisation? If orphan knowledge exists, then organisations need to understand their potential for creating orphan knowledge. This paper defines orphan knowledge, and provides evidence of its potential by developing various scenarios and relating case‐study analysis from a sample of Australasian organisations. Indications are that even in organisations considered current “best practice” in managing intellectual capital, there is a medium to high potential for orphan knowledge to be created. Future research will determine whether different knowledge types, namely explicit versus tacit knowledge, have differing potentials for knowledge orphaning. Further research will consider the chief knowledge officer’s role in preventing and recovering organisation orphan knowledge.