Types Of Intangible Assets Research Articles

The Measurement and Recognition in the Financial Reporting Disclosures

This research aims to examine the importance of completing annual reports properly. It also tries to understand the causes of complexities the business faces while creating reports. It has been identified that there are different types of intangibles and there is no particular method to measure them. This creates complexity while creating reports. Accounting measurements are relevant for preparing financial statements, and these statements are cornerstones for decision-making by the various stakeholders in any economy. This research analyses lessons that can be learned from different aspects involving accounting measurements in financial reporting, with significant reference to intangibles, leasing, goodwill, and pensions. It considers the relevance of these items, their influence on the balance sheets alongside profit, and secondary issues related to them. Hence, the essay leverages previously published or existing studies, amply demonstrating how these aspects of accounting are entwined. With the help of this analysis, the future perspective of the accounting measurements concerning examples like IFRS and US GAAP is explored along with the recapitulation of the thesis statement.

VALORIZAÇÃO DE ACTIVOS INTANGÍVEIS AMBIENTAIS: UMA ANÁLISE BIBLIOMÉTRICA E SISTEMÁTICA

Objective: This paper presents a systematic bibliometric analysis of the literature on intangible valuation, especially environmental intangibles, to analyze the relevance of the subject, the state of scientific knowledge, and research opportunities. Theoretical Framework: Intangible assets are relevant for companies because they can contribute to higher company valuation. Some research studies have successfully classified the different types of intangible assets and developed models to value companies that include them. However, diverse results have not allowed reaching a consensus on their use in company valuation. Method: The Knowledge Development Process-Constructivist (ProKnow-C) methodology was used; articles on intangible assets were analyzed with the VOSViewer® software, while an analysis of the articles for environmental assets was performed with the lens.org platform. Results and Discussion: It was determined that most intangible asset valuation models are empirical and use regressions to perform the valuation. Intellectual capital is one of the intangible assets that has been proposed by more models. Research Implications: Some opportunities for future research on this topic are identified; these are adjusted to models that consider the main environmental assets and are easily applied by companies.

Intangible capital, the labour share and national ‘growth regimes’

This paper examines how far an increase in the intangible capital-to-output ratio contributes to changes in labour share. We focus on a selection of OECD countries using industry-level data from 1995 to 2017. We show that the relationship between intangible capital and labour share is heterogeneous, and whether it is positive or negative depends on the types of intangibles and the growth regime of the national economy. In the Nordic countries, whose growth regimes balance domestic demand and exports of high-value services, the net effect of intangible capital on the labour share is tiny but positive. In contrast, it is negative for countries with high-quality manufacturing exporting sectors, such as Germany, Belgium and Austria. The evidence suggests that there are counteracting impacts in the USA and the UK, although the net effect is positive. We examine the bidirectional causality between the labour share and intangibles, showing that those behave as gross complements in the Nordic countries and as gross substitutes in the high-quality manufacturing export-led regimes; in the rest of the regimes, it depends on the asset.

Recognition of separate intangible assets in terms of the FSBU 14/2022 Standard: Some peculiarities

Subject. This article deals with the issues if it is reasonable to recognize such items as trademark, website and goodwill as intangible assets taking into consideration the transition to the procedure for accounting and financial statements preparation by organizations in Russia in accordance with the Federal Accounting Standard FSBU 14/2022 – Intangible Assets. Objectives. The article aims to analyze the complicated issues and specifics of the practical qualification of separate accounting items from the perspective of their compliance with the methodological provisions of the FSBU 14/2022 at the stage of transition to the application of the Standard. Methods. For the study, we used a systems analysis and generalization of legislative and regulatory documents, and professional literature. Results. The article finds that for the justified recognition of the items considered, including trademarks, websites and goodwill, it is necessary to analyze their compliance with the FSBU 14/2022 – Intangible Assets provisions, and in some cases, the accountant's professional judgment is necessary for the correct qualification of the listed items. Conclusions and Relevance. The variety and multiplicity of qualities of different types of intangible assets and economic benefits, as well as the emergence of new accounting items of an intangible nature, which require reasonable qualification in accounting, are among the reasons for the presence of identified problems. It is also necessary to take into account the fact that at present, not all Russian accountants have sufficient methodological training in terms of interpreting certain complex provisions of the FSBU 14/2022. The results of the study can be used in scientific and practical activities, for training specialists in the field of accounting and auditing, as well as for developing proposals for the correct transition to the FSBU 14/2022 provisions application.

Various Types of Intangible Assets

Various Types of Intangible Assets

The Intangible Assets in the Green Transition of Firms: Empirical Insights from Italy

We empirically investigate the simultaneous relationship between the various types of intangible assets and their effects on eco-innovation adoption through a sample of Italian manufacturing firms. The results highlight a positive influence of the intangibles on the likelihood to invest in eco-innovation. We observe, when focusing on the human capital, that while investments in only employee training only directly affect eco-innovation, the investments in management training for new business models indirectly influence eco-innovations by triggering the other intangible assets (R&D and intellectual property, Organizational capital, Open innovation).

The Impact of Intangible Capital on the Productivity of Small Firms

Despite the mounting evidence in support of the role of intangible capital on firm performance, some research gaps remain. This paper focuses on the link between intangible capital and firm performance with a particular focus on the effect firm size has on the relationship by studying the population of Slovene enterprises between 2007 and 2020. We find that while intangible assets are positively associated with productivity, the link is by no means linear. Furthermore, micro firms appear to benefit most from investing in intangible assets, while the effect is less robust for small and medium-size enterprises (SMEs) and large firms. Amongst different types of intangible assets, the strongest effect on productivity was found for investment in property rights and goodwill, while long-term deferred development costs had a weaker effect on firm productivity.

Article: BEFIT and Formulary Apportionment: Should Intangibles Be Included in the Formula?

In 2021 the European Commission proposed a new framework for taxing corporate income (“Business in Europe: Framework for Income Taxation”, or BEFIT). Consolidated profits of European Union (EU) based groups will be aggregated into a single tax base, and then allocated to Member States (MS) through a formulary approach. Critical issues in defining the formula comprise how assets (including intangibles) should be reflected. The purpose of this article is to discuss some core topics related to intangible recognition and its potential impact in the formulary approach considered in BEFIT. More precisely, the topics addressed are: (1) should intangibles be included in the asset component of the formula, alongside with sales and employment? (2) considering the several types of intangible assets, which ones would merit inclusion? Our view is that intangibles acquired to other companies belonging to the group (related party transactions) and intangibles developed internally by group members but that do not meet criteria for accounting recognition, should be out of the formula. Contrarily, intangibles developed internally that fulfil criteria for accounting recognition, and intangibles acquired to third (independent) parties should be included, with an exception for recognized goodwill. BEFIT, formula apportionment, EU corporate taxation, intangibles

The Contribution of Intangible Assets to the Growth of the Russian Economy

This paper studies the change in the contribution of intangible assets to economic growth in Russia after applying the Corrado, Hulten and Sichel (2005) approach to estimate an extended list of intangible assets. As a result, intangible assets contribution increased from 0.05 p.p to 0.15 p.p of 3.28 percent of growth in Russia in the period 2004–2014. These estimates show that the inclusion of the expanded list of intangible assets increases growth and redistributes production growth between capital accumulation and the growth of multifactor productivity towards capital accumulation, and between the accumulation of tangible capital and intangible capital towards intangible capital. The results differ from European countries, where intangible assets formed 9 percent of growth in 2004–2014. Comparing the structure of intangible assets in Russia and in Europe and the US, we conclude that in Russia, the highest contribution to the growth of intangible assets is due to intellectual property, while in developed countries, the contributions are distributed more evenly across different types of intangible assets under consideration.

INTANGIBLE ASSETS IN THE POSTINDUSTRIAL ECONOMY: MYTHS AND REALITY

Abstract. The purpose of the article is to determine the role and the place of the intangible assets in the postindustrial economy. The points of view of different scientists about the formation and development of the postindustrial economy from the position of globalization have been checked and the main unsolved controversies, which are observed in the process of its development, have been analyzed. The faultiness of some theses, from the position of the critical analysis, about the influence of some intangible assets on the macro and micro-indicators of the postindustrial society in general and the separate enterprises, in particular, has been proved. Based on the statistic data of the countries’ economies of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) the thesis about fast effectiveness and financial feedback from the implementation of the intangible assets has been simplified. The complexity of the dimension of the financial feedback of the intangible assets is in that the results of their implementation into the production process in many cases has intangible character, which is not connected with the creation of the final product of consumption (creation of the organization capital, human capital, etc). R. Sollow’s paradox hypothesis as to information technologies has been proposed to be broadened by the on other types of intangible assets. The accountant legislature of different countries has been analyzed and it has been determined that the number in investments in the performance of the research and development (R&D) might influence the amount of the intangible assets in different ways. The results of the leading world corporations’ assets analysis, working in different areas, have been presented in the article. For this purpose, the structure of their balances for 2018 has been analyzed and it has been determined that intangible assets do not occupy the dominant part in the overall general assets. Keywords: intangible assets, postindustrial economy, R&D, productivity, asset structure in the balance sheet. JEL Classification M41, O33, O34 Formulas 0; fig.: 1; tabl.: 3; bibl.: 18.

Innovative competences, the financial crisis and firm-level productivity in Denmark and Finland

ABSTRACT This paper examines how intangible assets contribute to firm-level productivity in the small open economies of Denmark and Finland from 2000 to 2013. We examine whether the role of intangible assets has changed over time, from the period of fairly stable growth prior to the crisis in 2008 to the more difficult period of recovery afterwards where intangible capital deepening decreased in 2008–2013 in many European countries. The productivity analysis is conducted in two stages. First, we derive total factor productivity (TFP), and second, we estimate the effects of intangible assets on total factor productivity. Our approach for measuring intangible assets is based on occupational classifications in a linked employer–employee dataset. We construct measures for three types of intangibles: broad R&D assets (R&D), organizational assets (OC) and information and communication technology assets (ICT). In both countries, the TFP effects of broad R&D increase slightly in the period after the crisis. For Finland, we also find that the TFP effects of OC increase after the crisis, while Denmark experienced a considerable increase in OC assets after financial crises in intangible intensive industries such as information, education and health industries, where productivity is lower.

Problems of formation of intangible assets in trading systems on the example of X5 Retail Group

The article deals with the features of formation and evaluation of intangible assets in network retail trade, their role as a resource for the development of retail networks. The established criteria for classifying retail network assets as intangible assets and their compliance with current practice are investigated. The structure of intangible assets is analyzed using the example of X5 Retail Group. The possibilities of evaluating a portfolio of long-term lease agreements for retail space as an asset of a retail network are considered. Methodological approaches to the valuation of certain types of intangible assets, in particular their own brands, are proposed.

Аналітична оцінка клієнтського капіталу світових компаній-лідерів

The example of reporting on the activities of 100 leading companies in the US stock market investigated the availability and disclosure of intangible assets that characterize client capital. Based on the systematization of the reporting data of these companies, the types of intangible assets that can be an information base for the analysis of client capital are identified. (client lists, customer bases, order portfolio, etc.) and marketing-related ones (trademarks, trade names, brands). They raise client capital, both in the total assets of the leading companies of the American stock market during 2014-2018, and intangible assets in particular. Based on the results of 2018. found that raw materials, telecommunications, industrial, technology and consumer goods companies (out of a list of 100 leading companies) exhibit a high proportion of those that disclose intangible assets that characterize client capital in their own reporting. The dynamics of change in the absolute average value of intangible assets characterizing client capital is determined on the example of the surveyed companies for 2014-2018.

The economic policy cycle and public debt in México. A retrospective analysis of 2012-2016 period

The objective of this research is to measure the effects of intellectual capital (human, organizational and technological) on financial performance. The data belong to the economic censuses of the years 2009 and 2014 in the field of tourism, with information on hotel activities in the 32 states of the Mexican Republic. The least squares methodology was applied with adjusted panel-type errors, analyzing the human, organizational and technological influence on financial performance. The results suggest that in the first place there is the technological dimension, as it is significant in its two indicators in relation to financial performance. Second, there is the human, with two of two significant indicators. Finally, the organizational one, with one of three significant indicators in relation to the dependent variable. According to the hypotheses, technological capitals and the human capital establish a significant and positive effect with financial performance. However, intellectual capital, jointly, does strengthen finances. This work contributes, with empirical evidence, to establishing links between the different types of intangibles and financial performance, as well as helping to understand the drivers of financial performance and therefore a sustainable competitive advantage.

The combined contribution of intangible capital and global value chain participation to productivity

This paper studies the combined contribution to productivity of four types of intangibles (R&D, software and databases, design and economic competencies) and global value chain (GVC) participation. The analysis is conducted at industry level. GVC participation is analysed using network centrality measures calculated from the World Input-Output Database (WIOD), while intangible valuation is obtained from the Intan-Invest database. Our unbalanced panel consists of 14 countries and 16 industries observed for the period 2000-2014. The analysis is based on a two-stage procedure. First, a proxy for total factor productivity (TFP) is obtained by estimating a production function with labour and non-ICT capital as inputs. Secondly, estimated TFP is used to evaluate how several types of intangibles and GVC measures affect productivity. Moreover, we use interaction terms in order to estimate jointly the impact of the two factors and evaluate the role of intangibles in the transmission mechanism between GVC and productivity. Both GVCs and intangibles were found to be significant drivers of productivity. Moreover, we find a combined effect of the two variables, with intangibles that moderate the relation between GVC and productivity.

THEORETICAL FUNDAMENTALS OF FORMATION OF THE MOTIVATION SYSTEM AT ENTERPRISE

In modern conditions of aggravation of competition the question of creation of effective system of motivation of the personnel at the enterprise acquires extreme urgency. The level of employees’thirst for work depends on the chosen system of motivation. That is why company executives need to rationally combine tangible and intangible methods of staff motivation. Foreign experience proves that intangible and tangible methods of motivation play an equally important role in organizing the work of subordinates. That is why the study of the process of choosing a method of staff motivation in the enterprise is becoming increasingly important, which confirms the relevance of the chosen to research topic.The article investigates the theoretical foundations of the formation of an effective system of motivation in the enterprise.The main motives that underliemotivation are highlighted. Motivation theories are outlined and analyzed. The analysis of the main components of the motivation system: tangible and intangible. The factors contributing to the formation of an effective system of motivation in the enterprise are revealed. Possibilities of combination of tangible and intangible types of motivation at the enterprise are substantiated. It has been proven that motivation has a significant impact on the life of every person and is a driving force in any economic activity.Everyone is an individual, so the goal of company leaders is to choose motivational factors in accordance with the individual qualities of employees. To get the maximum effect from the work of subordinates, the manager must determine the motives of each employee.

Investment dynamics in Europe: Distinct drivers and barriers for investing in intangible versus tangible assets?

In this paper, we look at the determinants of investment in intangible assets in Europe and explore whether their drivers and barriers are the same as for tangible assets. Our assessment suggests that tangible and intangible assets indeed appear to be affected somewhat differently by some of the tested key determinants. For instance, the regulatory framework seems to be more relevant for investment in intangibles while financial conditions, and in particular the availability of external funding, appear to be more relevant for tangible investment. Moreover, some evidence of complementarities between investments across different asset types suggests that a barrier to investment relevant for one asset type may indirectly impede investment in other assets too as there are synergies among different asset types, notably between tangible and intangible assets but also between different types of intangible assets.

Strategic behaviour of Russian companies with regard to intangibles

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to explore strategy-specific competencies with regard to intangibles and provides empirical evidence of intangible-based strategy groups for Russian companies. Additionally, the study examines the link between intangible-based strategy and company performance.Design/methodology/approachThe paper uses strategic group theory and the resource-based view framework to identify similar strategic behaviour of companies by employment of intangibles. In line with the intellectual capital concept, the study provides a cluster analysis that considers four types of intangibles: human, relational, innovation and process capital. These are measured through publicly available data using principal component analysis. The empirical part of the study uses a database of 1,096 Russian public companies, which covers the period 2004–2014.FindingsAs a result, the study reveals three profiles of strategic behaviour with regard to intangibles. The majority of Russian public companies (63.5 per cent) are Generics and pursue a non-intensive intangible strategy. Only 13.3 per cent of companies constitute the intangible-intensive profile by having endowment of all intellectual resources higher than the sample average. The remaining companies (23.2 per cent) also pursue an intangible-intensive strategy with a focus on innovation capital. Intangible-intensive strategic groups outperform Generics.Originality/valueThe study proposes a novel intangible-based strategy continuum, which straddles two polar strategies: generic and smart. The study introduces insights to better understand the differences in performance across intangible-intensive strategies and presents a new empirical inquiry into strategic behaviour with regard to intangibles in Russia.

Intellectual capital and performance measurement systems in Iran

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to empirically explore how the effect of intellectual capital (IC) on organizational performance is indirect and mediated through performance measurement (PM) systems.Design/methodology/approachData were collected from a survey of 128 chief financial officers of Iranian publicly listed companies. Hypotheses were tested using partial least squares regression, a structural modeling technique which is appropriate for highly complex predictive models.FindingsResults from the structural model indicate that, in general, companies with a higher level of IC place a premium on the balanced use of PM systems in a diagnostic and interactive style. Furthermore, the results provide some evidence that IC is indirectly associated with organizational performance through the intervening variable of the balanced use of interactive and diagnostic PM systems.Practical implicationsThis study sheds light on the issue of how senior management should use PM systems to take full advantage of intellectual assets which could lead to improved organizational performance.Originality/valueThis is the first study of its kind to synthesize a model which examines IC, PM systems, and organizational performance. Although the effect of different types of intangible assets on performance has been substantially examined in the literature, less effort has been devoted to understanding the role of PM systems in leveraging an organization’s IC.

CRITERIA FOR RECOGNITION OF INTANGIBLE ASSETS ON BALANCE STATEMENT

Здійснено порівняння підходів до трактування поняття нематеріальних активів у нормативно-правових документах, оцінено вплив наукових розробок на практику відображення нематеріальних активів в обліку та звітності підприємств. Встановлено, що для визнання кожного окремого нематеріального активу на балансі потрібно спершу з'ясувати, чи отримуватиме підприємство економічні вигоди від використання такого активу та чи може бути такий актив достовірно оцінений. З'ясовано, що облік і документальне оформлення нематеріальних активів залежить від природи виникнення або від джерела появи активу на підприємстві. Подано перелік витрат, що входять до первісної вартості нематеріальних активів для потреб їх відображення на балансі. Охарактеризовано зміст та вимоги до оформлення первинних документів, які є підставою для визнання і відображення нематеріальних активів на балансових рахунках бухгалтерського обліку. Зазначено підходи до встановлення строку корисного використання об'єкта нематеріальних активів. Розглянуто групування нематеріальних активів у системі рахунків бухгалтерського обліку. Висвітлено основні моменти щодо практичного вибору підприємством методу нарахування амортизації нематеріальних активів. Розглянуто послідовність перенесення інформації про первісну (переоцінену) вартість та суму накопиченої амортизації нематеріальних активів до статті Нематеріальні активи балансу підприємства. Запропоновано комплексний підхід до визнання нематеріальних активів на балансі, що задовольняє інформаційні потреби користувачів фінансової звітності.