Advertisement

Theoretical Framework for Intellectual Capital Reporting of NPOs

  • Katrin Blankenburg
Chapter
  • 522 Downloads
Part of the Contributions to Management Science book series (MANAGEMENT SC.)

Abstract

A theoretical framework for the motivation of intellectual capital disclosure of NPOs is developed based on links between six theories. According to literature the theories most frequently used for research into this topic of IC measurement and reporting were agency theory, legitimacy theory, resource-based view, and stakeholder theory. These theories are introduced in light of IC reporting of NPOs to facilitate a transparent and comprehensible choice of a theory applied. Additionally, since legitimacy theory is part of institutional theory, and resource-based view and resource dependency theory are based on the same assumptions, these theories are presented as well. Since each of the presented theories provides valuable answers to the question as to what motivates NPOs to disclose their IC, a table offers an overview on the key perspective of the six theories while a graph highlights the links between the theories. As a result stakeholder theory and resource dependency theory are utilised as the theoretical framework for the analysis of the data collected to address the research questions.

Keywords

Intellectual Capital Disclosure Resource Dependence Theory Stakeholder Theory Legitimacy Theory Resource-based View 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Abhayawansa, S. A. (2014). A review of guidelines and frameworks on external reporting of intellectual capital. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 15(1), 100–141. doi: 10.1108/JIC-04-2013-0046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adelberg, A. H. (1983). The accounting syntactic complexity formula: A new instrument for predicting the readability of selected accounting communications. Accounting and Business Research, 13(51), 163–175. doi: 10.1080/00014788.1983.9729749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. An, Y., Davey, H., & Eggleton, I. R. C. (2011). Towards a comprehensive theoretical framework for voluntary IC disclosure. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 12(4), 571–585. doi: 10.1108/14691931111181733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arvidsson, S. (2011). Disclosure of non-financial information in the annual report: A management-team perspective. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 12(2), 277–300. doi: 10.1108/14691931111123421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120. doi: 10.1177/014920639101700108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beattie, V. (2013, April 16). Conversation with Vivien Beattie at BAFA Annual Conference 2013.Google Scholar
  7. Beattie, V., & Smith, S. J. (2013). Value creation and business models: Refocusing the intellectual capital debate. The British Accounting Review, 45(4), 234–254. doi: 10.1016/j.bar.2013.06.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brennan, N., & Connell, B. (2000). Intellectual capital: Current issues and policy implications. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 1(3), 206–240. doi: 10.1108/14691930010350792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bronzetti, G., Mazzotta, R., Puntillo, P., Silvestri, A., & Veltri, S. (2011). Intellectual capital reporting practices in the non-profit sector. Sumy: Virtus Interpress. Accessed July 31, 2012, from http://virtusinterpress.com/IMG/pdf/Sample_Chapter-2.pdf
  10. Brüggen, A., Vergauwen, P., & Dao, M. (2009). Determinants of intellectual capital disclosure: Evidence from Australia. Management Decision, 47(2), 233–245. doi: 10.1108/00251740910938894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brugha, R., & Varvasovszky, Z. (2000). Stakeholder analysis: A review. Health Policy and Planning, 15(3), 239–246. doi: 10.1093/heapol/15.3.239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Deephouse, D. L., & Suchman, M. C. (2008). Legitimacy in organizational institutionalism. In R. Greenwood et al. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 49–77). London: SAGE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Deutsches Rechnungslegungs Standards Commitee e.V. (2012). Deutscher Rechnungslegungs Standard Nr. 20 (DRS 20) (pp. 1–56). Accessed November 23, 2015, from www.drsc.de/docs/press_releases/2012/120928_DRS20_nearfinal.pdf
  14. Diehl, J. (2008). Die Unicef-Krise: Hilfswerk sucht Hilfe. Spiegel Online. Accessed February 20, 2014, from http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/unicef-krise-hilfswerk-sucht-hilfe-a-536641.html
  15. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dumay, J., & Cai, L. (2015). Using content analysis as a research methodology for investigating intellectual capital disclosure: A critique. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 16(1), 121–155. doi: 10.1108/JIC-04-2014-0043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Edvinsson, L. (2013). IC 21: Reflections from 21 years of IC practice and theory. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 14(1), 163–172. doi: 10.1108/14691931311289075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Edvinsson, L., & Sullivan, P. (1996). Developing a model for managing intellectual capital. European Management Journal, 14(4), 356–364. doi: 10.1016/0263-2373(96)00022-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Eisenhardt, M. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. The Academy of Management Journal, 14(1), 57–74.Google Scholar
  20. Elsbach, K. D., & Sutton, R. I. (1992). Acquiring organizational legitimacy through illegitimate actions: A marriage of institutional and impression management theories. Academy of Management Journal, 35(4), 699–738. doi: 10.2307/256313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fletcher, A., Guthrie, J., Steane, P., Roos, G., & Pike, S. (2003). Mapping stakeholder perceptions for a third sector organization. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 4(4), 505–527. doi: 10.1108/14691930310504536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Freeman, R. E., & McVea, J. A. (2001). A stakeholder approach to strategic management. Charlottesville, VA. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.263511.
  23. Göbel, E. (2002). Neue Institutionenökonomik. Stuttgart: Lucius & Lucius Verlagsgesellschft mbH.Google Scholar
  24. Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Sahlin, K., & Suddaby, R. (2008). Introduction. In R. Greenwood et al. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 1–46). London: SAGE.Google Scholar
  25. Guthrie, J., Petty, R., Yongvanich, K., & Ricceri, F. (2004). Using content analysis as a research method to inquire into intellectual capital reporting. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 5(2), 282–293. doi: 10.1108/14691930410533704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hillman, A. J., Withers, M. C., & Collins, B. J. (2009). Resource dependence theory: A review. Journal of Management, 35(6), 1404–1427. doi: 10.1177/0149206309343469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jepperson, R. (1991). Institutions, institutional effects, and institutionalism. In W. Powell & P. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 143–163). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  28. Kong, E. (2007). The strategic importance of intellectual capital in the non-profit sector. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 8(4), 721–731. doi: 10.1108/14691930710830864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. KPMG. (2012). Rechnungslegung in der Praxis – Bilanzierungs- und Bewertungsfragen nach deutschem Recht bei Non-Profit-Organisationen, (Homepage). Accessed January 08, 2014, from http://www.kpmg.com/DE/de/Bibliothek/2012/Seiten/Rechnungslegung-in-der-Praxis.aspx
  30. Kuhnle, H., & Banzhaf, J. (2006). Finanzkommunikation unter IFRS. München: Verlag Franz Vahlen GmbH.Google Scholar
  31. Lakes, B. (1998). NPO im Spannungsfeld von Solidarität und Wettbewerb. In R. Graf Strachwitz (Ed.), Dritter Sektor – Dritte Kraft: Versuch einer Standortbestimmung (pp. 447–462). Stuttgart: Raabe Verlags-GmbH.Google Scholar
  32. Langer, A., & Schröer, A. (2011). Professionalisierung in nonprofit management. In A. Langer & A. Schröer (Eds.), Professionalisierung in nonprofit management (pp. 9–31). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lichtsteiner, H., Gmür, M., Giroud, C., & Schauer, R. (2013). Das Freiburger Management-Modell für Nonprofit Organisationen (7th ed.). Bern: Haupt Verlag.Google Scholar
  34. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.Google Scholar
  35. O’Dwyer, B., Owen, D., & Unerman, J. (2011). Seeking legitimacy for new assurance forms: The case of assurance on sustainability reporting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 36(1), 31–52. doi: 10.1016/j.aos.2011.01.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Palmer, D., Biggart, N., & Dick, B. (2008). Is the new institutionalism a theory? In R. Greenwood et al. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 739–768). London: SAGE.Google Scholar
  37. Parsons, L. M. (2002). The impact of financial information and voluntary disclosure on contributions to not-for-profit organizations: A field-based experiment. Houston, TX: University of Houston.Google Scholar
  38. Petrash, G. (1996). Dow’ s journey to a knowledge value management culture. European Management Journal, 73(4), 365–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (2003). The external control of organizations. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Post, J. E., Preston, L. E., & Sachs, S. (2002). Managing the extended enterprise – The new stakeholder view. California Management Review, 45(1), 6–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Powell, W. W., & DiMaggio, P. J. (1991). Introduction. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 1–38). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  42. Raynard, P. (1998). Coming together. A review of contemporary approaches to social accounting, auditing and reporting in non-profit organisations. Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 1471–1479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Reed, M. S., Graves, A., Dandy, N., Posthumus, H., Hubacek, K., Morris, J., et al. (2009). Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(5), 1933–1949. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.01.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Scott, W. R. (2013). Institutions and organizations (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
  45. Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.Google Scholar
  46. Sveiby, K.-E. (1997). The new organizational wealth (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.Google Scholar
  47. The IIRC. (2011). Towards integrated reporting – communicating value in the 21st century. Accessed May 15, 2012, from http://www.theiirc.org/discussion-paper/
  48. Theuvsen, L. (2011). Professionalisierung des Nonprofit-Managements durch Governance-Kodizes: Eine Analyse der Transparenzwirkung. In A. Langer & A. Schröer (Eds.), Professionalisierung in nonprofit management (pp. 131–149). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. van Broekhoven, R. A. (2008). Engaging Donors’ Trust. Accessed February 20, 2014, from http://www.icfo.org/ICFO-Publications
  50. Varvasovszky, Z., & Brugha, R. (2000). How to do (or not to do)... A stakeholder analysis. Health Policy and Planning, 15(3), 338–345. doi: 10.1093/heapol/15.3.338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wilke, B. (2008). Die “UNICEF-Krise” – Lehren, Chancen und Risiken für das deutsche Spendenwesen. In Spenden-Siegel FORUM 2008. Berlin: Deutsches Zentralinstitut für soziale Fragen (DZI). Accessed February 20, 2014, from http://www.dzi.de/spenderberatung/das-spenden-siegel/spenden-siegelforum/spenden-siegelforum-2008/
  52. Zerfaß, A. (2009). Immaterielle Werte und Unternehmenskommunikation – Herausforderungen für das Kommunikationsmanagement. In K. Möller, M. Piwinger, & A. Zerfaß (Eds.), Immaterielle Vermögenswerte – Bewertung, Berichterstattung und Kommunikation (pp. 23–48). Stuttgart: Schäffer-Poeschel Verlag Stuttgart.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katrin Blankenburg
    • 1
  1. 1.Hamburg University of Applied SciencesHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations