The British Accounting Review 42 (2010) 56–70

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The British Accounting Review

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/bar

A longitudinal examination of intellectual capital reporting in Marks

& Spencer annual reports, 1978–2008
David Campbell a, *, Mara Ridhuan Abdul Rahman a, b
a
Newcastle University Business School, Newcastle University, United Kingdom
b
School of Accounting, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Malaysia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper examines the intellectual capital content of Marks & Spencer annual reports
Received 8 September 2009 over a 31 year period from 1978 to 2008 using a content analysis instrument. Motivated by
Received in revised form the gap among prior studies in respect of longitudinal samples, the paper also sets out to
29 September 2009
note the ways in which the annual report has changed over the three decades in response
Accepted 11 November 2009
to the supposed change from the assumption that fixed assets and operations were the
key driver of value creation to a belief that knowledge and the stock of intellectual assets
Keywords:
had become a more powerful explanation of value-added. The paper finds an overall
Intellectual capital
Content analysis increase in intellectual capital reporting over the 31 years but notes a particular increase
Accounting in relational capital reporting and a re-ordering of sub-categories over time. Narrative
Voluntary disclosure (as opposed to quantitative) reporting has increased and ‘factual’ (as opposed to opinion
and judgement) reporting has decreased. The paper concludes that annual report narra-
tives have reflected a wider change in the market for information among investors and
other stakeholders. Whilst the exact nature of these market changes was beyond the
scope of this paper, it is concluded that changing patterns of ICR reflect the increased
complexity of the messages being conveyed in voluntary reporting. The increased reliance
on IC in value creation has, we argue, created a need for narrative of less factual certainty
and with more ambiguity and circumspection in describing increasingly complex
knowledge assets.
Ó 2009 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction

A key challenge in voluntary corporate reporting concerns the relevance and usefulness of the information being
conveyed. Canibano, Garcia-Ayuso, and Sanchez (2000) and Yongvanich and Guthrie (2005) both convincingly argued that
the relevance of traditional reporting has been challenged by the changing nature of the business environment and the
different sources of business value creation. It is posited that in the competition of the ‘new economy’, there is a greater
reliance on knowledge-based assets such as human knowhow, innovation, technologies and information. Physical and
financial assets such as cash, machinery, land and labour have, accordingly, become less powerful explanations of business
success.
This observation is, of course, not new. Seetharaman, Sooria, and Saravanan (2002) reported that the ratio of tangible to
intangible assets in 1929 was 70/30 but this had shifted to 37/63 by 1990. Further, Seetharaman et al. (2002) pointed to

* Corresponding author. Newcastle University Business School, Newcastle University, Accounting and Finance, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU,
United Kingdom.
E-mail address: d.j.campbell@ncl.ac.uk (D. Campbell).

0890-8389/$ – see front matter Ó 2009 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

doi:10.1016/j.bar.2009.11.001
 D. Campbell, M.R. Abdul Rahman / The British Accounting Review 42 (2010) 56–70 57

a shift away from a dominant ‘p-economy’ (production oriented) to a ‘k-economy’ (knowledge-based) with the implication
that knowledge assets have become structurally more important in value creation. The issue explored in this paper is how
these knowledge assets have been reported and how this reporting has changed over time. Specifically, the paper seeks to
examine how the annual report reflects this change and how annual reporting has changed over time in response to these
changes.
Peppard and Rylander (2001) argued that accounting for intellectual capital is capable of providing a holistic view of value-
adding in that it creates a framework that allows for describing all the resources at the firm’s disposal and how they interact to
create value. Indeed, Holland and Johanson (2003, p. 468) argued that ‘companies. recognise that such intangibles are often
at the heart of competitive advantage.’
Companies have chosen to disclose this information through a number of media, including in marketing literature, in
labour market communications, through separate supplements to annual reports (such as the Danish intellectual capital
statements from the mid 1990s onwards) or through dedicated intellectual capital disclosures within the annual reports
themselves.
The main purposes of this paper are to examine the content of IC in the totality of annual report narratives (and not just in
dedicated IC disclosures) and to show this over a lengthy time period where external changes may have driven changes in
reporting patterns. For the majority of companies (that do not produce stand alone or dedicated IC reports), the only
systematic source of IC information is the annual report and so the IC content of the annual report could conceivably be
investment-material information to shareholders (Holland and Johanson (2003, p. 467) found that, ‘capital market actors are
intrigued by, and act on, information about intangibles.’). The nature of IC content in annual reports and an understanding of
how this content changes over time will enable a deeper appreciation of its importance to reporting companies and its
potential role in information conveyance.
These research objectives also fit with a larger stream of literature examining the materiality and usefulness of the
corporate annual report more generally (Botosan, 1997; Campbell & Slack, 2008; Gray, Meek, & Roberts, 1995). As a document
produced regularly, editorially controlled by the company and intended for a shareholder readership, the annual report has
a crucial role in the conveyance of material information to a range of stakeholders including shareholders. Research sug-
gesting that annual reports may not meet user’s information needs (e.g. Campbell & Slack, 2008) have intensified the
importance of this strand of research.
It is generally believed that changing reporting demands in the market for information drive changes in voluntary
disclosure (Botosan, 1997). Although the measurement of user information demands is problematic, research in some areas
of voluntary disclosure have found reporting responses to changing stakeholder demands. It is generally accepted, for
example, that social and environmental disclosure in annual reports is a partial response for the need for reporting
companies to legitimate themselves in the perceptions of key stakeholders (Campbell, 2004; Deegan & Gordon, 1996;
Deegan & Rankin, 1996; Wilmshurst & Frost, 2000). The nature of the demand for IC content is less explored (although see
Striukova, Unerman, & Guthrie, 2008) but the changing nature of value-adding, from the utilisation of fixed assets to an
intellectual assets-based economy, is presumed to be a prominent driver of changing IC reporting practice. This has not
hitherto been systematically tested and the longitudinal nature of the sample used in this study makes such an analysis at
least partially tractable.
In contrast to prior studies that have mainly favoured cross-sectional content over longitudinal length, this study describes
one company’s IC reporting over a period of 31 consecutive years from 1978 to 2008. The value of this sample is that, whilst
having the obvious limitation of cross-sectional narrowness, it enables patterns of reporting over time to be observed. The
disaggregation of the totality of IC into sub-categories enables conclusions to be drawn about the way in which the company
in question (Marks & Spencer plc) has constructed its reporting. This, in turn, may offer some insight into the manner in which
value is internally perceived and how IC reporting changes in response to market demands.
Specifically with regard to the annual report, Hopwood (1996, p. 55) observed that, ‘‘the accounting data are now a mere
technical appendix to a highly sophisticated product of the design environment.’’ More recently, Campbell, McPhail, and Slack
(2009, p. 908) argued that, ‘‘annual reports no longer just communicate simple financial data: they are designed to convey
complex multi-messages to a number of different constituencies and are now ‘used’ by executives, sales representatives and
personnel departments for a number of different purposes.’’ A key point is that most of these users are not skilled in financial
analysis, and these would arguably place a greater importance on the narrative sections of the report. The narrative reporting
of intellectual capital would be a suitable vehicle for communicating value to such users and as value creation has changed
over recent decades, the question is how these changes are reflected in annual report content.
This paper begins by defining intellectual capital as employed in this study. It then proceeds to review the literatures
relevant to both IC reporting and the content analysis method employed in this study. The method is then described and
results explained and commented upon. Finally, the paper, based on the findings, comments on Marks & Spencer’s IC
reporting over the 31 years and discusses findings in the context of how observed changes reflect the changing nature of the
information being conveyed and the changing nature of the sources of value creation.

2. Defining intellectual capital

Intellectual capital is perceived as a hierarchy of nested concepts with synonymous terms often being used across studies
(Beattie & Thomson, 2007). An agreed and universal definition is elusive, however, but most prior authors seem to agree that
58 D. Campbell, M.R. Abdul Rahman / The British Accounting Review 42 (2010) 56–70

Table 1
Selected previous empirical ICR studies (AR: annual reports, IPO: initial public offerings).

Authors Country Years No. companies Media used Unit of analysis

Guthrie and Petty (2000) Australia 1998 20 AR –
Brennan (2001) Ireland 11 AR –
April et al. (2003) Africa 20 AR –
William (2001) UK 1995–1999 40 AR Disc. index
Bozzolan et al. (2003) Italy 2001 30 AR Sentence
Abdolmohammadi (2005) USA 1993–1997 58 AR Term
Vandemaele et al. (2005) Netherland 1998, 2000 60 AR Sentence
Sweden 2002
UK
Vergauwen and van Alem (2005) Netherland 2000 & 2001 95 AR Word
France
Germany
Bukh et al. (2005) Denmark 1990–2001 68 IPOs Disc. index
Goh and Lim (2004) Malaysia 2001 20 AR –
Wong and Gardner (2005) New Zealand 2004 60 AR Sentences
Bozzolan et al. (2006) Italy & UK 2001 60 AR Word
Abeysekera and Guthrie (2005) Sri Lanka 1999–2000 30 AR Sentence
Beattie and Thomson (2007) UK 2004 1 AR Text unit
Singh and Van der Zahn (2007) Singapore 1997–2004 334 IPOs Disc. index
Meca and Martinez (2005) Spain 2000–2001 Report to analysts Disc. index
White et al. (2007) Australia 2005 96 AR Disc. index
Lee et al. (2007) Australia 2005 128 Websites Disc. index
Vergauwen et al. (2007) UK 2002 60 AR Word
Denmark
Sweden
Cordazzo (2007) Italy 1999–2002 86 IPOs Disc. index
Gerpott et al. (2008) German 2003 29 AR Sentence
Sonnier et al. (2008) USA 2000 & 2004 141 AR Word
Oliveras et al. (2008) Spain 2000–2002 12 AR Word
Whiting and Miller (2008) N. Zealand 1999–2002 70 AR Sentence
Striukova et al. (2008) UK – 15 Multiple Instance
Schneider and Samkin (2008) N. Zealand 2004/2005 82 AR Disc. index
Kamath (2008) India 2005–2006 30 AR Words
Abeysekera (2008) Singapore 1998–2000 Not mentioned AR Not mentioned

it is a multi-dimensional concept that is helpful in describing a company’s stock of knowledge assets and how these have
changed, or are expected to change, over time (Huang, Luther, & Tayles, 2007). The terms ‘intangible assets’ and ‘intellectual
capital’ have been used interchangeably in many prior studies with the emphasis being placed on the notion that both are part
of the explanation of the sources of long-term value creation for an organization.
According to Edvinsson and Malone (1997) intellectual capital is information and knowledge applied to work to create
value while Marr, Schiuma, and Neely (2004) defined IC as a group of knowledge assets that are attributable to an organi-
zation and create improved competitive positioning by adding value to defined key stakeholders.
A consensus is evident on the membership categories of ICR. As the field has matured, three common categories have
emerged as the most helpful in describing the construction of IC and these are usually cited as internal (or structural)
capital, relational capital and human capital (Bozzolan, Favotto, & Recceri, 2003; Brennan, 2001; Guthrie & Petty, 2000;
Guthrie, Petty, Yongvanich, & Ricceri, 2004; Ordonez de Pablos, 2002). The components of each IC category are detailed in
Appendix 1.

3. Previous IC studies and the positioning of this study

Table 1 summarises the characteristics of the most prominent previous empirical studies that have been conducted in IC
reporting (all content analysis studies). The media employed for the analysis of IC reporting have included annual reports
(April, Bosma, & Deglon, 2003; Bozzolan et al., 2003; Guthrie & Petty, 2000), company’s websites (Lee, Neilson, & Van der
Zahn, 2007; Striukova et al., 2008) and a company’s IPO prospectus (Bukh, Nielsen, Gormsen, & Mouritsen, 2005; Cordazzo,
2007; Singh & Van der Zahn, 2007). The studies have taken place in several countries but mainly in western countries such as
Australia (Guthrie & Petty, 2000), Ireland (Brennan, 2001), Italy (Bozzolan, O’Regan, & Ricceri, 2006), UK (Striukova et al.,
2008), Spain (Meca & Martinez, 2005) with fewer focussing on Asian countries i.e. Sri Lanka (Abeysekera, 2007); Malaysia
(Goh & Lim, 2004), Singapore (Singh & Van der Zahn, 2007) and India (Kamath, 2008).
Generally, the content analysis of ICR has focused on three main strands. The first strand has empirically described ICR
practice in corporate annual reports either in single country settings (Bozzolan et al., 2003; Brennan, 2001; Goh & Lim, 2004;
Guthrie & Petty, 2000) or in international comparative studies (Bozzolan et al., 2006; Guthrie, Petty, & Ricceri, 2006; Van-
demaele, Vergauwen, & Smith, 2005; Vergauwen & van Alem, 2005). Overall, these studies have demonstrated the growing
 D. Campbell, M.R. Abdul Rahman / The British Accounting Review 42 (2010) 56–70 59

amount of ICR practice in annual reports with most IC being qualitative in nature and with no established framework or
appropriate reporting structure in place. In most cases, relational (external) capital appeared to be the most prominent
component of ICR. The comparative studies suggest that there is significant variability in ICR practice between countries. For
example, Swedish companies disclosed more than Dutch and British companies (Vandemaele et al., 2005) and Australian
companies were found to report more IC than Hong Kong companies (Guthrie et al., 2006).
The second strand has attempted to compare other variables with ICR practice to test for associations. Tested
variables have included company size (Bozzolan et al., 2003; Bukh et al., 2005), industry membership (Abdolmo-
hammadi, 2005; Bozzolan et al., 2003), ownership (Bukh et al., 2005; White, Lee, & Tower, 2007), company ages (Bukh
et al., 2005; Cordazzo, 2007; White et al., 2007), and nationalities (Bozzolan et al., 2006). A number of interesting
observations have arisen from these studies. For example, Bozzolan et al. (2003), Meca and Martinez (2005) and White
et al. (2007) found that company size affected the amount of IC disclosure while Bukh et al. (2005) failed to find any
such association.
The third strand of IC study comprises papers that have attempted to find associations between the amount of ICR and
capital market consequences. Typically, these studies have sought to investigate the usefulness of ICR on credit, investment
decision making and capital market numbers (Abdolmohammadi, 2005; Dumay & Tull, 2007; Gerpott, Thomas, & Hoffman,
2008; Guimon, 2005; Petty, Ricceri, & Guthrie, 2008; Singh & Van der Zahn, 2007). Working with variables of varying degrees
of epistemic ‘hardness’, it is not surprising that the findings of ICR on market consequences are mixed. In contrast to
Abdolmohammadi’s (2005) finding that it was unrelated, for example, Vergauwen, Bollen, and Oirbans (2007) found ICR to be
significantly positively associated with market to book value.
It is evident from Table 1 that prior studies have privileged cross-sectional breadth over longitudinal depth. The value of
the longitudinal study described in this paper rests partly upon it being the first such study in IC reporting. As a study
describing reporting patterns over three decades, this paper describes a period in which the source of firms’ competitive
advantage has (it is argued) changed dramatically from tangible to knowledge assets (Seetharaman et al., 2002). Knowl-
edge assets have become increasingly important due to competition arising from globalisation as well as the emergence of
new information systems and significant advances in technology (Lev, 2001; Sveiby, 1997). The question is whether and
how this change is reflected in IC reporting and this question is only tractable when a lengthy longitudinal sample is
employed.
Table 1 shows the relatively recent nature of prior work with all of them having studied behaviour from the 1990s
onwards. Little or nothing is known about IC reporting prior to this period and there is no contiguous longitudinal study of
a single company’s behaviour over an extended period. This paper answers calls for longitudinal research by, inter alia,
Abeysekera (2008), Bozzolan et al. (2003), Guthrie and Petty (2000), Kamath (2008), Oliveras, Gowthorpe, Kasperskaya, and
Perramon (2008), and Vandemaele et al. (2005). Longitudinal study is manifestly more appropriate for studying individual
firm-level changes as opposed to cross-sectional sampling. Because time effects have hitherto been inaccessible to
researchers, this paper reports on such effects over a three decade period in a single UK-based company. In addition, this
study, in keeping with the aims of the study by Striukova et al. (2008), seeks to provide specifically UK-based evidence of ICR
practice but unlike their study, this study is able to offer longitudinal data. In so doing, the paper also seeks to examine the
role that the annual report plays in the conveyance of ICR.
Accordingly, this research set out to provide evidence to respond to three broad research questions: whether the volume of
annual report ICR changed over time, how the relative composition of the categories and sub-categories of ICR have changed
over time and whether the qualitative nature of ICR has changed over time (all in relation to Marks and Spencer plc annual
reports, 1978–2008). These questions can also address the larger inquiry into how the annual report has changed in its
reporting of ICR.

4. Capturing meaning in IC reporting: unit of analysis

The choice of unit of analysis is one of the most important in any content analysis study (witness the different units of
analysis employed by previous studies in Table 1). In semiotic content analysis studies, the quantity of content is measured at
the level of the word, sentence, paragraph, page proportion, or clause/phrase. The research challenge is to establish the
resolution that represents the level of hermeneutic significance in the narrative being analysed (Beattie & Thomson, 2007;
Steenkamp & Northcott, 2007; Unerman, 2000). Similarly, some prior studies have employed a disclosure index-based
instrument (Bukh et al., 2005; Singh & Van der Zahn, 2007). The diversity of approaches taken renders comparison between
studies problematic.
Each unit of analysis or level or textual resolution has its own pros and cons. Resolution at the level of the word – the
most straightforward in terms of capture – is appropriate when meaning is conveyed by the writer at that level such as in
a legal document where each word is weighed for meaning before being included in the narrative. It is exegetically
disingenuous to assume that individual words convey meaning, when reported, when the intent of the writer was not
resolved at the same level of detail. Other issues with word count include categorisation issues where individual words may
be a part of one or more disclosure categories or a part of one or more layers of overlapping discourse. In addition, a word
per se is evidently meaningless if it is coded without the context in which it appears (Holland & Foo, 2003; Milne & Adler,
1999; Sonnier, Carson, & Carson, 2008) and this itself is problematic when using a content analysis based interrogation
instrument.
60 D. Campbell, M.R. Abdul Rahman / The British Accounting Review 42 (2010) 56–70

The use of sentences as the unit of analysis was defended by, among others, Milne and Adler (1999, p. 243) as ‘far more
reliable’ than other units. A higher level of inter-coder agreement will naturally arise when using a sentence count (against,
say, a word count) because of the lower level of ambiguity of the meaning of a whole sentence (compared to a word). Again,
however, it is only defensible to use sentences as the unit of analysis if meaning is intended and conveyed at that level by the
writer. Sentence count may be frustrated by (at least) two countervailing concerns: when the sentence is a part of a greater
narrative at which it would be more reliable to infer meaning and, when more than one category of content is conveyed in the
same sentence (Beattie & Thomson, 2007; Holsti, 1969; Steenkamp & Northcott, 2007; Weber, 1990). Additionally, sentences
vary naturally in length and are influenced by grammatical choice and stylistic variation (Unerman, 2000). These factors will
also influence the amount of information being conveyed.
Cruder volumetric measures, such as paragraphs and page proportions offer the advantage of being relatively straight-
forward to measure against the disadvantage of being, for most narrative types, incapable of describing anything other than
a single ‘large’ categories of reporting such as ‘environmental reporting’, ‘human capital reporting’ or similar. Where
a paragraph may contain discussion about several sub-categories, these would clearly not be resolvable if the whole category
was counted as the unit of analysis.
An alternative unit of analysis, and the one favoured in this study, is resolution at the level of the phrase, clause or theme
(‘text unit’). Previously suggested by Beattie, McInnes, and Fearnley (2004), Beattie and Thomson (2007) and Holsti (1969),
using the phrase or clause as the unit of analysis enables meaning to be inferred from text or varying length, depending on
where discussion of that particular sub-category begins and ends. It may be a sentence or even several sentences, but it need
not be: it could be a section of a sentence. This offers the advantage of categorising the totality of narrative without the
constraints of having to allocate meaning by word, sentence or paragraph. If a sub-category is reported in a small number of
words, that is captured just as effectively as if it were an entire paragraph. The total number of sub-categories described in an
IC narrative can thus be effectively captured. When combined with elements of a disclosure index, we argue that this is
a powerful content analysis tool capable of describing meaning.
Disclosure indices, some of which also capture volumetric content, attempt to resolve information quality of narrative by
the interrogation of each unit of analysis according to predetermined information quality categories (Marston & Shrives,
1991). Although more time consuming per inquiry (involving several interrogative filters per unit of analysis), disclosure
indices have the advantage of a richer level of analysis being possible. This approach has become increasingly popular in
studying intellectual capital reporting (Bukh et al., 2005; Cordazzo, 2007; Singh & Van der Zahn, 2007; William, 2001).
The issue of disclosure quality, coded for in disclosure indices, is discussed in the next section.

5. Capturing meaning in IC reporting: measuring qualitative characteristics

In addition to measuring the relative importance of ICR by frequency by sub-category type on the basis of semiotic
assumptions, this study also resolved for information quality using two qualitative characteristics of coded text unit themes
(or clauses).
The resolution of qualitative characteristic in this study was motivated by Guthrie et al. (2004, p. 289) who argued that,
‘studying the quality of ICR would enable us to focus on subsequent in-depth investigation on how organizations identify,
measure and report their IC’. In addition, however, those capturing purely volumetric and/or frequency-based content
analysis data are manifestly limited in their power to describe content and trend (e.g. April et al., 2003; Oliveras et al., 2008;
Sonnier et al., 2008; Vergauwen & van Alem, 2005).
A number of previous ICR studies applied weighted scores on the nature of ICR ranging from purely discursive to financial/
numerical. Excepting a study by Meca and Martinez (2005), none of the previous studies provided statistical data to weight
the quality of ICR (e.g. Bozzolan et al., 2003; Guthrie & Petty, 2000; Vandemaele et al., 2005). Guthrie and Petty (2000), for
example, found that Australian companies tended to disclose IC in discursive form but the finding was not supported by any
statistical data. In addition, there is an absence of analysis for factual data on ICR in previous studies.

6. Method used in this study

6.1. Selection of sample and media

Abeysekera and Guthrie (2005) are among those who have argued that annual reports are an appropriate vehicle to
measure the comparative positions and trends of intellectual capital between firms, industries and countries. In concurring
with this analysis, the annual report was used as the medium for analysis for this study for two prominent reasons.
First, because the aims of this study was to provide longitudinal review of intellectual capital reporting practices, it was
necessary to select a document for study capable of recording and retaining historical detail. Websites have only been in
existence for a decade or so and cannot be used for longitudinal analysis owing to their frequent change, and IPO and similar
documents (e.g. rights issues) are produced only intermittently.
Second, for reasons advanced by a number of previous studies that have used the annual report as the basis for analysis, it
is believed that the annual report can be broadly assumed to be an adequate conveyor of reporting intent. Campbell (2000, p.
85) argued that the annual report adequately conveyed reporting intent because the ‘‘company has total editorial control over
 D. Campbell, M.R. Abdul Rahman / The British Accounting Review 42 (2010) 56–70 61

the document (excluding the audited section)’’ and also that ‘‘it is usually the most widely distributed of all public documents
produced by the company’’.
Given that the explicit purpose of this study was to provide longitudinal insights into ICR, longitudinal ‘depth’ clearly had
to be privileged over cross-sectional ‘breadth’. There is a short tradition of longitudinal study in voluntary reporting studies
(e.g. Campbell, 2000, 2004; Deegan & Gordon, 1996; Guthrie & Parker, 1989; Unerman, 2000) and this study is the first such
study in IC reporting specifically. The availability of 31 consecutive years (1978–2008) of Marks & Spencer plc annual reports
provided a suitable sample for analysis for three reasons, all concerned with controlling for exogenous causes of potential
reporting change.
First, over the period of the study, Marks & Spencer had undergone no significant changes in its ownership structure that
might have impacted upon its reporting (i.e. no reporting-changing significant mergers, acquisitions or demergers). Second,
management succession had been orderly and mainly internal and third, its strategy, in terms of positioning, and product and
resource market participation, had remained substantially similar throughout the period. In other words, there is no prima
facie internal reason why the company’s ICR should necessarily have changed over the period of study. This means that as far
as is reasonably possible, structural changes have been controlled for by selecting Marks & Spencer because there have been
no internal changes, such as a major acquisition, that might have changed the ICR. Any changes in ICR are more likely,
therefore, to be due to exogenous changes. Third, retailing as a sector (Marks & Spencer’s main industry membership), was
noted by Striukova et al. (2008, p. 303) as having ‘intermediate reliance on IC’ compared to other sectors where an obvious
bias could conceivably skew the observations.
Within each annual report, all of the narrative-based sections in what is sometimes referred to as the ‘front end’ of
a document were analysed for IC content. Although not resolved by specific location, all sections of the ‘front end’ were
studied for this purpose including introductory remarks, chairman’s statement, chief executive’s statement, any operating
and financial review content, directors’ report, social/environmental content and any other sections prior to the auditor’s
report.
A coding sheet was employed and data was transferred from that to a spreadsheet. The coding sheet was piloted on
a single year at the commencement of the study to ensure that it was capable of accurately capturing the totality of ICR in
a given annual report. Coding errors were controlled for by the double coding, between the two authors, of a representative
sample of narratives. Once any disagreements were resolved (all by detailed discussion) and a small number of disambig-
uation rules were established, the remainder of the sample was coded. There were, after discussion, no inter-coder
disagreements.

6.2. Choice of IC categories and sub-categories

To preserve the comparability of this study with previous research, the categories and sub-categories of IC captured were
based on those initially developed by Guthrie and Petty (2000). The Guthrie and Petty (2000) framework has been widely
adopted and employed with varying degrees of similarity by (it appears) at least by sixteen further studies: in more-or-less
the same form by April et al. (2003), Brennan (2001), Goh and Lim (2004), Steenkamp and Northcott (2007); and in modified
form by Guthrie et al. (2006) and Striukova et al. (2008).
The framework captures intellectual capital reporting by allocating qualifying content into one of three major categories
and then into one of seventeen sub-categories, a framework defended by Striukova et al. (2008, p. 302) as ‘valid and reliable’.
Within structural capital there are six sub-categories, within relational capital there are also six and within human capital
there are five, making the seventeen sub-categories in total. The definitions of these categories and sub-categories are
detailed in Appendix 1.

6.3. Unit of analysis

As described above, this study resolved for meaning at the level of the phrase, clause or theme. This was based on the
premise that in wide ranging narratives, such as those employed in annual reports, sentences and paragraphs can cover more
than one theme.
A theme, according to Holsti (1969, p. 116), is a single assertion about some subject and the most useful unit of analysis.
Themes are not bound by grammatical unit such as word, sentence or paragraph but rather they refer to clusters of words
with different meaning or connotation that, taken together, refer to some theme or issue (Weber, 1990, p. 37). Resolution by
theme enables coders to break down a sentence or paragraph into its component text unit themes before they are placed in
the selected categories and then sub-categories.
The following sentence, coded for this research, illustrates this.
‘‘At the same time, we extended our store refurbishment trial and continued to open new mainline and ‘Simply Food’ stores.’’
(M&S annual report 2006, p. 2)
Using the categories of ICR developed by Guthrie and Petty (2000) employed in this study, this sentence was coded as
possessing two separate IC categories.
‘‘At the same time, we extended our store refurbishment trial’’
62 D. Campbell, M.R. Abdul Rahman / The British Accounting Review 42 (2010) 56–70

was coded as reporting about an infrastructure item, which is, in turn, a matter of structural capital.
‘‘.open new mainline and ‘Simply Food’ stores’’
was interpreted as a comment about forward distribution channels which is a matter of relational capital.
Clearly then, coding this disclosure at the level of the sentence would have been too crude to capture its meaning, unless it
were to be double counted in which case the sum of the content count parts would conceivably be greater than the whole
thereby frustrating later analysis.

6.4. Capture of ICR ‘quality’

Once coded by category and sub-category, each clause or theme was then coded for information ‘quality’. Based on
methods employed by Guthrie and Petty (2000) and Bozzolan et al. (2003), two mutually inclusive quality categories were
employed where each coded text unit theme was interrogated for each of two quality measures: the nature of the information
(narrative or quantitative/financial) and the level of factuality or judgement conveyed by the information.1
The first of these, the narrative/quantitative inquiry, is intended to record the ‘hardness’ of the nature of ICR reporting. The
assumption is made that one facet of ‘quality’ information is quantifiability and contextualisation of information (e.g. against
budget, target or trend).
Second, coded information was interrogated to determine whether the information was presented as fact or merely
managerial perception. Factual information is typically expressed as something that has actually happened or something
that is expressed in a proven or verifiable manner. Beattie and Thomson (2007) argued that information is considered
a fact if it is verifiable. Conversely, non-factual content is defined as that expressed as perception or impression (Santos &
Garcia, 2006, p. 73) and tends to be expressed in terms of awareness, belief, cognition, estimation or sense-making
(Mezias & Starbuck, 2003, p. 5). Perception disclosures are unverified and possibly unverifiable. The assumption is that
verifiable and verified information is ‘harder’ and of different information quality than perception information although
this need not mean that perception information is of less materiality as it may contain intent, undertakings or
assessment.
By way of example, the following disclosure was coded as perception.
‘‘Marks and Spencer is able to maintain its outstanding values thanks to its unique partnership with suppliers. Our buying
team’s technical knowhow and awareness of suppliers’ capabilities enable us to have large cost efficient production run.’’
(Annual report, 1996, p. 11)
The following was coded as factual information.
‘‘We are the UK’s largest clothing retailer with a market share of 11.1% (source: TNS Worldpanel) and sales accounting for
44.8% of our UK business. In womenswear we expanded our ‘Autograph’ range and the fast fashion choice in ‘Limited
Collection’; in menswear, ‘Blue Harbour’ remains the UK’s biggest men’s casualwear brand; we grew our lingerie market
share to 26.1%, offering clearly defined brands.’’ (Annual report, 2007: 1)

7. Findings

7.1. Categories comparison

Table 2 displays the number of relevant clauses or themes of IC reporting in Marks and Spencer’s annual reports from 1978
to 2008. A total of 3503 ICR relevant themes or text units were identified in the 31 annual reports. Of these, and describing the
figures for all years:

- 61 percent (2140 themes) were relational capital information, and,

- 27 eight percent (944 themes) were human capital information.
- 12 percent (418 themes) were structural capital information.

The rank order of the three broad categories remained the same in each year excepting 1978, 1980 and 1981. Overall, the
proportion of the relational capital category was between 45 percent and 70 percent of total ICR, making it by some distance
the most popular ICR category throughout the 31 financial periods. The highest proportions of relational capital information
were found in years 2007 and 2008, in which it made up 74 and 75 percent of total ICR themes respectively.
Structural capital information was the least reported category and in most cases accounted for less than 15 percent of the
total number of ICR text unit themes in the annual report. In year 2000 for example, structural capital information made up
only 5 percent of total ICR themes or ‘text units’.

1
These categories are represented as binary in this paper (i.e. ‘narrative or quantitative’ and ‘factual or perception’). The research upon which this article
is based captured both on scales: 1 to 6 in the case of the narrative inquiry and 1 to 3 in the factual inquiry. The level of resolution captured by the use of the
scales is not necessary for the reporting of findings in this paper and would be unnecessarily complex and tedious.
 D. Campbell, M.R. Abdul Rahman / The British Accounting Review 42 (2010) 56–70 63

Table 2
No. of ICR text unit themes (i.e. absolute numbers) from 1978 to 2008.

Year Structural capital Relational capital Human capital Total

1978 3 13 17 33
1979 5 22 16 43
1980 5 12 14 31
1981 4 12 18 34
1982 6 22 19 47
1983 6 26 23 55
1984 9 34 18 61
1985 4 32 28 64
1986 5 30 21 56
1987 8 37 21 66
1988 27 72 32 131
1989 18 67 36 121
1990 24 70 41 135
1991 15 92 31 138
1992 5 60 23 88
1993 14 64 25 103
1994 33 82 24 139
1995 15 100 28 143
1996 24 86 42 152
1997 11 98 42 151
1998 16 97 50 163
1999 9 40 31 80
2000 4 49 31 84
2001 6 40 39 85
2002 11 71 25 107
2003 16 94 29 139
2004 11 107 39 157
2005 21 113 36 170
2006 37 127 61 225
2007 18 183 44 245
2008 28 188 40 256

Total 418 2140 944 3502

Percentages 12 61 27 100

Previous studies have noted that relational capital is the most voluminous and frequent IC category (Bozzolan et al., 2006;
Goh & Lim, 2004; Oliveras et al., 2008; Striukova et al., 2008) and this study has found this to be true in a longitudinal sense as
well. In the case of Marks and Spencer’s annual reports, relational capital reporting comprises such themes as the long
established alliances between the company and suppliers, franchisees, customers and local authorities as well as the brand.
These relationships and facets have driven a great deal of the relational capital reporting in the annual reports.

7.2. Comparison with prior studies

Table 3 shows comparative data for selected previous ICR studies including from a range of countries other than the UK.
Although methods varied in the gathering of data, the approximate rankings given in the last column enable comparisons to
be made.
It is evident that all of the studies found relational capital to be the most volumetric or frequent (depending on content
analysis method) ICR category. After that, human capital is found to be the most volumetric or frequent in all but one study

Table 3
Comparison of ICR percentages in annual reports across previous studies. Indicative comparison only: methods are not necessarily directly equivalent or
comparable.

Study Proportions Rank order

Relational Human Structural

This study (UK) 61 27 12 1, 2, 3
Guthrie and Petty (2000) (Aus) 40 30 30 1, 2, 2
April et al. (2003) (Africa) 40 30 30 1, 2, 2
Bozzolan et al. (2003) (Italy) 49 21 30 1, 3, 2
Abeysekera and Guthrie (2005) (Sri Lanka) 44 36 20 1, 2, 3
Guthrie et al. (2006) (HK) 37 35 28 1, 2, 3
Oliveras et al. (2008) (Spain) 60 22 18 1, 2, 3
Whiting and Miller (2008) (NZ) 47 33 20 1, 2, 3
Striukova et al. (2008) (UK) 61 22 17 1, 2, 3
64 D. Campbell, M.R. Abdul Rahman / The British Accounting Review 42 (2010) 56–70

Fig. 1. Trend of ICR from 1978 to 2008: total. Y axis is number of text unit themes.

(Bozzolan et al., 2003) although two other studies (April et al., 2003; Guthrie & Petty, 2000) found human and structural
capital to be equal.

7.3. Longitudinal patterns and trends

Figs. 1 and 2 show the incidences of coded text unit themes in total (Fig. 1) and by category (Fig. 2). It is evident from the
similarity of shape between the total line on Fig. 1 and the relational capital line on Fig. 2 that relational capital is substantially
responsible for the shape of the overall longitudinal trend. Excepting temporary declines in the early and late 1990s/early
2000s, the trend has clearly been in the ascendant. The other two categories, human and structural capital, both show modest
rates of growth over the three decade period but again, with some variability over time.
The most rapid period of growth for relational capital reporting has been since year 2001. From a low of 40 clauses about
relational capital in 2001, there has been a year on year growth to the high of 188 clauses in 2008. This growth has taken place
over a period in which the other two categories have remained relatively undisturbed.

7.4. Ordering of ICR sub-categories over time

When the sub-categories were ranked overall (for all years) the order was as shown in Appendix 2. In order to gain some
insights into how the rank order changed over time, the longitudinal period was divided into three time periods roughly
coinciding with the three decades examined (Table 4).

Fig. 2. Trend of ICR from 1978 to 2008: by category. Y axis is number of text unit themes.
 D. Campbell, M.R. Abdul Rahman / The British Accounting Review 42 (2010) 56–70 65

Table 4
Top five most frequently reported IC sub-categories by decade.

Rank Period 1 1978–1989 Period 2 1990–1999 Period 3 2000–2008

1 Employee (HC) Distribution channel (RC) Brand (RC)
2 Distribution channel (RC) Corporate image building (RC) Distribution channel (RC)
3 Corporate image building (RC) Business partnering (RC) Customers (RC)
4 Customers (RC) Customers (RC) Employee (HC)
5 Business partnering (RC) Brand (RC) Corporate image building (RC)

In period 1 (up until the 1989), information about employees was the most frequent item reported, followed by distri-
bution channel, corporate image building, customers and business partnering. In period 1, reporting of the Marks & Spencer
brand was not as popular as other elements of relational capital. Information about employees was the most frequently
mentioned item in all but one of the years in period 1 (see Appendix 2). Employee disclosure typically includes information
about employee equality, employee relation with company, featured employee and employee welfare. For example, the
following was included in the 1980 annual report (page 25).
‘‘We spent GBP11,988,000 on social and welfare facilities including catering subsidies, dental and health services concen-
trating on preventative medicine, for example cervical and breast cancer screening.’’
In period 2, the frequency of employee information was relegated from first to sixth (hence its invisibility in the top 5 in
period 2 in Table 4). The top five in the 1990s was dominated by relational capital elements with distribution channel
information being the first, followed by corporate image building, business partnering, customers and brand. Interestingly,
reporting on brand was sixth in period 1 and rose steadily over time periods to its final position as first in the third period.
Information about distribution channels remained a frequent disclosure item in period 2. In the 1994 annual report, for
example, the following disclosure was made (page 15):
‘‘New technologies links have been made between suppliers and the company distribution network to create supply chains
that are among the most responsive and shortest of any retailer in the world.’’
In period 3, brand information was the most popular element. The emergence of sub-brands within the overall product
mix was partly responsible for this with the company announcing the following in 2008 (page 9).
‘‘Menswear reduced its brands to three – ‘Autograph’, ‘Blue Harbour’ and ‘Collezione’ – by autumn 2005. ‘Autograph’ was re-
launched in August 2005, providing a wider offer of designer-led pieces, and was a strong performer. Suiting also performed
well and hit a three-year high in its market share. ‘Blue Harbour’, the biggest casualwear brand for men in the UK, also had
a strong year.’’

8. Qualitative character of ICR

The first observation to make with regard to the nature of ICR over the 31 year period is that ICR was reported
predominantly in narrative-only forms, with these making up, in most cases, over 60 percent of total ICR text unit themes
each year (except in years 1980, 1981 and 1982 – see Fig. 3). This is perhaps to be expected given the narrative-driven nature of
the ‘front end’ of an annual report. The proportions of narrative against numerical-containing disclosures increased over the

Fig. 3. Change in proportion that is purely narrative and factual information vs. time showing trendlines. Y axis is percentage of that qualitative assessment that
qualifies as narrative (squares) or factual (triangles). The two lines are not related (i.e. percentages are unrelated to each other).
66 D. Campbell, M.R. Abdul Rahman / The British Accounting Review 42 (2010) 56–70

course of the study, however (the top line in Fig. 3). The most narrative-rich disclosures were made in years 1999 and 2000
and accounted for 89 and 88 percent of text unit themes respectively. The results suggest that while the number of ICR themes
increased over the period of study, the conveyance of content by numerical and financial measure fell as a proportion of the
total. The predominantly voluntary ‘front end’ sections of annual reports contain fewer quantitative and numerical IC
disclosures than previously. This finding contextualises a previous observation by Striukova et al. (2008) who noted
a predominance of narrative reporting. Our study shows how this became more so over time.
On average, 71 percent of ICR clauses from 1978 to 2008 were reported in narrative form. Guthrie and Petty (2000) noted
that the absence of quantitative expression was due to the tendency of companies to simply address where the value of
companies lies rather than assigning dollar values to ICR items. This would suggest that Marks & Spencer found it increasingly
difficult to assign monetary values to ICR items over time. The reason for this is unclear.
In terms of the resolution of the factual/perception question, Fig. 3 (the lower line) shows a net downward trend in verifiable,
factual content over time by proportion. The average figures (all years) are 23% factual/verifiable and 77% perception/non-
verifiable but this conceals what is clearly a downward movement over time. The lowest point of factual content was 1996 (6% of
text unit themes were factual/verifiable) with other lows in 2002 (7%) and 2007 (9%). The highest point was 1980 (45%).

9. Discussion

This paper began by discussing the changing role of the annual report and the way in which annual report content changes
in response to the market for corporate information. This study is the first to examine changes in ICR over an extended period
and thus the first to be able to comment on a number of longitudinal trends. In summary, the observed trends include:

 An overall increase in the number of textual clauses (text units) devoted to ICR over time and an marked increase over
previous levels since the late 1990s.
 A prominent proportionate and absolute increase in relational capital disclosure over the 31 year period (Fig. 2) but
particularly following an unexplained switch point in the graph in 2001. The sub-category of greatest prominence over the
period of most growth was product branding.
 A re-ordering of the most dominant themes in IC reporting and no theme consistently more disclosed than others over time.
 Changes in the qualitative nature of IC reporting over the 31 year period: an overall upward trend in purely narrative content
and an overall downward trend in IC themes expressed as factual information (as opposed to subjective information).

As with other categories of disclosure, changes over time signal movements in the demand for information as the
disclosing company perceives it. Marks & Spencer investor relations were not able to comment on the trend (the average
length of relevant employee service does not allow for such comment) but the authors were told that ‘‘We report on things
that the investors want us to report against’’ with the implication being that such changes over time were due to the
company’s perceived changes in the market demand for information. The authors were also advised that Marks & Spencer has
never reported under the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) nor any other voluntary reporting framework, so such frameworks
evidently are not the driver of reporting changes noted in this study.
In terms of the overall increase over time, there is likely to be some element of response to the structural changes in value
creation that have taken place over the 31 year period. It is likely that the change from a ‘p-economy’ to a ‘k-economy’
(Seetharaman et al., 2002) are reflected somewhat in these changes in that value creation is thought to be less attributable to
physical assets and more to intellectual and knowledge assets. Whereas the state of physical assets is important, it is likely
that this is taken as a ‘given’ by investors who then seek clarification on sources of value that are less taken-for-granted (i.e.
the IC content). There is further evidence for this within the ICR disclosures themselves: there is evidence of a demotion of
human sources of value (employees ranked 1st in period 1 to 4th in period 3) and an increase in the brand as the most
frequent ICR sub-category.
The changing qualitative character of the ICR, towards increased narrative and decreased factual narrative is likely to be
reflective of the complexity of the messages being conveyed. Whereas physical assets can often be described in simple terms
(the age of an asset, for example), intangibles are, by their nature, more complex to describe. The relative increase in narrative
reporting is likely to be related to the complexity of the message. Two less longitudinal studies found non-quantitative
proportions of 90% (Guthrie et al., 2006) and 72% (Beattie et al., 2004). This study has found a longitudinal average of 71%,
lower than these figures which suggests that such figures are historically high. The need for the use of narrative is, however,
linked to the need to adequately report on complex themes using the range of expression provided for in narrative that
numerical conveyance is less able to do.
It is likely that similar points can be made in explanation of the relative decrease in factual (as opposed to judgement-
based) disclosure. Again, the inability of complex messages to be conveyed in simple, factual terms is at the root of this trend.
As the need to explain value in terms of more ambiguous causes (over time), the conveyance of that in tones of certainty
became less allowable. The use of more judgement-based narrative is, evidently, a more appropriate means of conveyance
than the expression of certainties.
Inasmuch as Holland and Johanson (2003) and Petty et al. (2008) found that users required more IC in annual reports, it
seems, based on evidence from this study, that Marks & Spencer sought to meet this need by not only disclosing more, and
varying the types of IC disclosed over time (more relational capital, for example), but also by modifying the manner in which
 D. Campbell, M.R. Abdul Rahman / The British Accounting Review 42 (2010) 56–70 67

that information is conveyed. The dramatic increase in relational capital is perhaps an indication of how the company
perceives the sources of its shareholder value – less on internal factors in the structural and human capital categories and
more on its external relationships and the assets and competences that underpin those relationships (such as brands). This
reflects the lower emphasis on traditional sources of value creation and reflects the increasingly complex interconnectedness
that is a major factor in shareholder value.
There are several avenues for further research suggested by these findings. Certainly, complimentary longitudinal studies
would be needed to reinforce or limit the generalisability of the trends and changes observed at Marks & Spencer. Studies over
a similar time period and employing similar methods would be very worthwhile. In addition however, engagement with
reporters for the purposes of discussing reporter’s perceptions of the importance and value of the respective elements of IC
reporting would be very interesting, especially those capable of commenting on how perceptions have changed over time.
Given that there is evidence (from this study) that IC reporting has changed substantially over the 31 year period
examined, it would be interesting to project and predict how narrative reporting in general and IC reporting in particular may
change in future years. As the structures of economies change, and these changes are reflected in IC reporting, it is likely that
annual reporting will change in sympathy with supposed user needs in future.

Appendix 1. Categories and definitions of intellectual capital reporting.

Categories Key concepts Indicators

Structural capital
1. Intellectual properties Patent – An exclusive right granted by Patent
government that confers upon the creator of an invention the Trademark
sole right to make, use, and sell that invention during period of Copyright
protection. Internet domain name
Copyright – protection of creative or artistic works such as Design
literature, drama, music, art, layout and recording.
Trademark – A distinctive characteristic by which a person or
things become to be known

2. Corporate culture The pattern of arrangement, material or behavioural which has Vision, Mission, Code of ethic, Code of conduct, Code of
been adopted by a corporation, group or team as the accepted practice, Principles of operation
way of solving problem

3. Management philosophy How organization thinks about its employees, customers, Create value to shareholders, Sustain growth, Listen to
environmental and community (referring to company’s general customer, Protect environment and Caring society
belief not to activities)

4. Management and System, procedure and technologies practised or used by Control stock
technological process companies Quality control
Performance appraisal

5. Information and System consisting of the network of all communication Computer network, database, software, network,
networking system channels used within organization hardware, intranet, server etc.

6. Infrastructure Development of tangible long-term assets Portfolio of properties, stores modernization and
refurbishment, floor extension, store safety, machine,
plant etc.

Relational capital
7. Financial relationships Favourable monetary relationship with suppliers Relationship with shareholders, bankers and other fund
suppliers

8. Brands It is a promise. By identifying and authenticating a product or Brand

services it delivers a pledge of satisfaction and quality Sub-brand
Range of product and services name
Market shares
Product awards

9. Customers Customers named

Customer loyalty
Customers trust
Customers feedback
Customers services
Customer satisfaction
No. of customers
Customers segment
Customers convenience such as shop more appealing,
more facilities
(continued on next page)
68 D. Campbell, M.R. Abdul Rahman / The British Accounting Review 42 (2010) 56–70

Appendix 1 (continued)

Categories Key concepts Indicators

10. Distribution channel The commercial process involves promoting, selling and Supply chain
distributing product and services into market Business network
Development new stores across regions.
Delivery system
Marketing and advertising
Carry out market research
Online selling
Catalogue
Promotion activities/strategies
Liaison office

11. Business partnering A relationship between company and individual or groups that Franchising
is characterized by mutual cooperation and responsibilities in Licensing
terms of business or social/environmental objectives Collaboration
Outsourcing
Suppliers
External expert/consultant
Agents
Government
Local authorities
Media/press

12. Corporate reputation Actions and activities which would positioning company’s Company name
reputation into higher level Sponsorship
Community involvement
Environmental protection measures.
Social responsibilities.
Any activities that could raise company name and
favourable contract

Human capital
13. Employees Employee profile.
Employee equity.
Equal opportunities.
Employee safety.
Employee relationship.
Employee featured.
Employee representation.
Employee welfare.
Employee recognition
Compensation plan, bonus, better pay.
Loyal and retention.
Duties and responsibilities.
Employee good attitude
Employee morale

14. Training The act or process taken by company directly or indirectly to Vocational development.
imparting skills to employees Career development.
Induction programme.
In house training.
Recruitment.
Employee assistance programme.
Continuing education for employee.
Any state of being trained

15. Education Education level possessed by any company’s members Bachelor

Master
PhD
Professional qualification

16. Work related Work related Knowledge Seniority

knowledge Work related Competencies Experience
Work related Experience Expertise
Know how

17. Innovation Innovation is holistic and covers the entire range of activities in Development new product.
business which creates value to customers and satisfactorily Research and development
return to business. New technology
Innovation appears in product and services, human resources Creative marketing strategy
management, procedure, organization structure and many Add new product line
things.
 D. Campbell, M.R. Abdul Rahman / The British Accounting Review 42 (2010) 56–70 69

Appendix 2. Rank order of top five ICR numbers from 1978 to 2008.

78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93
Infrastructure 5
Brand 5 5 5 4 4
Customers 3 4 3 4 4 4 3 5 4 4 4 5 5 4 5
Business partnering 5 4 5 4 5 5 2 3 5 5 4 5
Distribution channel 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 2 2 1 3 2 2 1 3
Corporate image building 3 5 3 2 2 2 2 4 3 3 2 3 1 2 2
Employee 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 3 1
Training 4
Education
Work related knowledge

94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08
Infrastructure
Financial relation 3
Brand 1 4 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5
Customers 4 4 4 1 2 4 4 2 3 5 2 4 3 2
Business partnering 1 1 2 4 2 5 4
Distribution channel 3 3 5 1 3 3 5 4 4 2 3 2 2 1
Corporate image building 2 2 5 3 5 5 5 5 3 5 4 3
Employee 5 4 5 2 3 4 4 3
Training
Education
Work related knowledge 5 3 2 2 1 1 3 5

References

Abdolmohammadi, M. (2005). Intellectual capital disclosure and market capitalization. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 6(3), 397–416.
Abeysekera, I. (2007). Intellectual capital reporting between a developing and developed nation. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 8(2), 329–345.
Abeysekera, I. (2008). Intellectual capital disclosure trends: Singapore and Sri Lanka. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 9(4), 723–737.
Abeysekera, I., & Guthrie, J. (2005). An empirical investigation of annual reporting trends of intellectual capital in Sri Lanka. Critical Perspectives on
Accounting, 16(3), 151–163.
April, K. A., Bosma, P., & Deglon, D. A. (2003). IC measurement and reporting: establishing a practise in SA mining. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 4(2), 165–180.
Beattie, V., McInnes, B., & Fearnley, S. (2004). A methodology for analysing and evaluating narrative in annual reports: a comprehensive descriptive profile
and metrics for disclosure quality attributes. Accounting Forum, 28(3), 205–236.
Beattie, V., & Thomson, S. J. (2007). Lifting the lid on the use of content analysis to investigate intellectual capital disclosure. Accounting Forum, 31(2), 129–163.
Botosan, C. A. (1997). Disclosure level and the cost of equity capital. The Accounting Review, 72(3), 323–349.
Bozzolan, S., Favotto, F., & Recceri, F. (2003). Italian intellectual capital disclosure: an empirical analysis. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 4(4), 543–558.
Bozzolan, S., O’Regan, P., & Ricceri, F. (2006). Intellectual capital disclosure: a comparison of Italy and the UK. Journal of Human Resources Costing and
Accounting, 10(2), 92–113.
Brennan, N. (2001). Reporting intellectual capital in annual reports: evidence from Ireland. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 14(4). 423–436.
Bukh, P. N., Nielsen, C., Gormsen, P., & Mouritsen, J. (2005). Disclosure information on intellectual capital in Danish IPO prospectus. Accounting, Auditing and
Accountability Journal, 18(6), 713–732.
Campbell, D. J. (2000). Legitimacy theory or managerial reality construction. Corporate social disclosure in Marks and Spencer reports, 1969–1997.
Accounting Forum, 24(1), 80–100.
Campbell, D. J. (2004). A longitudinal and cross-sectional analysis of environmental disclosure in UK companies – a research note. British Accounting Review,
36(1), 107–117.
Campbell, D. J., McPhail, K., & Slack, R. (2009). Face work in annual reports: a study of the management of encounter through annual reports, informed by
Levinas and Bauman. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 22(6), 907–932.
Campbell, D. J., & Slack, R. (2008). Social and environmental narrative reporting – Analysts’ perceptions. London: ACCA research report 104.
Canibano, L., Garcia-Ayuso, M., & Sanchez, P. (2000). Accounting for intangibles: a literature review. Journal of Accounting Literature, 19, 102–103.
Cordazzo, M. (2007). Intangibles and Italian IPO prospectuses: a disclosure analysis. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 8(2), 288–305.
Deegan, C., & Gordon, B. (1996). A study of the environmental disclosure policies of Australian corporations. Accounting and Business Research, 26(3), 187–199.
Deegan, C., & Rankin, M. (1996). Do Australian companies report environmental news objectively? Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 9(2), 50–67.
Dumay, J. C., & Tull, J. A. (2007). Intellectual capital disclosure and price sensitive Australian Stock exchange announcement. Journal of Intellectual Capital,
8(2), 236–255.
Edvinsson, L., & Malone, M. S. (1997). Intellectual capital: Realizing your company’s true value by finding its hidden brainpower. New York, NY: Harper Collins
Publisher Inc.
Gerpott, T. J., Thomas, S. E., & Hoffman, A. P. (2008). Intangibles assets disclosure in the telecommunications industry. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 9(1),
37–61.
Goh, P. C., & Lim, K. P. (2004). Disclosing intellectual capital in company annual reports: evidence from Malaysia. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 5(3), 500–510.
Gray, S. J., Meek, G. K., & Roberts, C. B. (1995). International capital market pressures and voluntary annual report disclosures by US and UK multinationals.
Journal of International Financial Management and Accounting, 6(1), 43–68.
Guimon, J. (2005). Intellectual capital reporting and credit risk analysis. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 6(1), 28–42.
Guthrie, J., & Petty, R. (2000). Intellectual capital: Australian annual reporting practices. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 1(3), 241–251.
Guthrie, J., Petty, R., & Ricceri, F. (2006). The voluntary reporting of intellectual capital: comparing evidence from Hong-Kong and Australia. Journal of
Intellectual Capital, 7(2), 254–271.
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.
70 D. Campbell, M.R. Abdul Rahman / The British Accounting Review 42 (2010) 56–70

Guthrie, J. E., & Parker, L. D. (1989). Corporate social reporting: a rebuttal of legitimacy theory. Accounting and Business Research, 19(76), 343–352.
Holland, L., & Foo, Y. B. (2003). Differences in environmental reporting practices in the UK and the US: the legal and regulatory context. The British
Accounting Review, 35(1), 1–18.
Holland, J., & Johanson, U. (2003). Value-relevant information on corporate intangibles – creation, use and barriers in capital markets – ‘‘between a rock and
a hard place.’’ Journal in Intellectual Capital, 4(4), 465–486.
Holsti, O. R. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Hopwood, A. (1996). Introduction. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 21(1), 55–56.
Huang, C. C., Luther, R., & Tayles, M. (2007). An evidence-based taxanomy of intellectual capital. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 8(3), 2007.
Kamath, B. (2008). Intellectual capital disclosure in India: content analysis of ‘TecK’ firms. Journal of Human Resources Costing and Accounting, 12(3),
213–224.
Lee, A., Neilson, J., & Van der Zahn, J. L. W. M. (2007). Is communicating intellectual capital information via Internet viable? Case of Australian private and
public hospitals. Journal of Human Resources Costing and Accounting, 11(1), 53–78.
Lev, B. (2001). Intangibles: Management and reporting. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Marr, B., Schiuma, G., & Neely, A. (2004). Intellectual capital: defining key performance indicators for organizational knowledge assets. Business Process
Management Journal, 10(5), 551–569.
Marston, C. L., & Shrives, P. J. (1991). The use of disclosure indices in accounting research: a review article. British Accounting Review, 23(3), 195–210.
Meca, E. G., & Martinez, I. (2005). Assessing the quality of disclosure on intangibles in the Spanish capital market. European Business Review, 17(4), 305–313.
Mezias, J. M., & Starbuck, W. H. (2003). Studying the accuracy manager’s perceptions: a research odyssey. British Journal of Management, 4, 3–17.
Milne, M. J., & Adler, R. W. (1999). Exploring the reliability of social and environmental disclosure content analysis. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability
Journal, 12(2), 237–256.
Oliveras, E., Gowthorpe, C., Kasperskaya, Y., & Perramon, J. (2008). Reporting intellectual capital in Spain. Corporate Communications: An International
Journal, 13(2), 168–181.
Ordonez de Pablos, P. (2002). Evidence of intellectual capital measurement from Asia, Europe and Middle East. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 3(3), 287–302.
Peppard, J., & Rylander, A. (2001). Leveraging intellectual capital at APiON. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 2(3), 225–235.
Petty, R., Ricceri, F., & Guthrie, J. (2008). Intellectual capital: a user’s perspective. Management Research News, 31(6), 434–447.
Santos, M. V., & Garcia, M. T. (2006). Manager’s opinions: reality and fiction. A narrative approach. Management Decision, 44(6), 752–770.
Schneider, A., & Samkin, G. (2008). Intellectual capital reporting by New Zealand local government sector. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 9(3), 456–486.
Seetharaman, A., Sooria, H. H., & Saravanan, A. S. (2002). Intellectual capital accounting and reporting in knowledge economy. Journal of Intellectual Capital,
3(2), 128–148.
Singh, I., & Van der Zahn, M. J. L. W. (2007). Does intellectual capital disclosure reduce an IPO’s cost of capital? Journal of Intellectual Capital, 8(3), 494–516.
Sonnier, B. M., Carson, K. D., & Carson, P. P. (2008). Intellectual capital disclosure by traditional US companies: a longitudinal assessment. Journal of
Accounting and Organizational Change, 4(1), 67–80.
Steenkamp, N., & Northcott, D. (2007). Content analysis in accounting research: the practical challenges, Natasja Steenkamp, Deryl Northcott. Australian
Accounting Review, 17(3), 12–25.
Striukova, L., Unerman, J., & Guthrie, J. (2008). Corporate reporting of intellectual capital: evidence from UK companies. The British Accounting Review, 40(4),
297–313.
Sveiby, K. E. (1997). The new organizational wealth: Managing and measuring knowledge base assets. San Francisco, CA: Berret-Koehler.
Unerman, J. (2000). Methodological issues: reflecting on quantification in corporate social reporting content analysis. Accounting, Auditing and Account-
ability Journal, 13(5), 667–680.
Vandemaele, S. N., Vergauwen, P. G. M. C., & Smith, A. J. (2005). Intellectual capital disclosure in The Netherlands, Sweden and the UK. Journal of Intellectual
Capital, 6(3), 417–426.
Vergauwen, P., Bollen, L., & Oirbans, E. (2007). Intellectual capital disclosure and intangible value drivers: an empirical study. Management Decision, 45(7),
1163–1180.
Vergauwen, P. G. M. C., & van Alem, F. (2005). Annual reports IC disclosures in the Netherlands, France and Germany. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 6(1),
89–104.
Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publication.
White, G., Lee, A., & Tower, G. (2007). Drivers of voluntary intellectual capital disclosure in listed biotechnology companies. Journal of Intellectual Capital,
8(3), 517–537.
Whiting, R. H., & Miller, J. C. (2008). Voluntary disclosure of intellectual capital in New Zealand annual reports and the hidden value. Journal of Human
Resources Costing and Accounting, 12(1), 26–50.
William, S. M. (2001). Is intellectual capital performance and disclosure practice related? Journal of Intellectual Capital, 2(3), 192–203.
Wilmshurst, D. W., & Frost, G. R. (2000). Corporate environmental reporting. A test of legitimacy theory. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal,
13(1), 10–26.
Wong, M., & Gardner, C. T. Intellectual capital disclosure: New Zealand evidence. Paper presented at 2005 AFAAANZ conference, Melbourne, 2005.
Available at: www.afaanz.org/web2005.pdf (Accessed 03.03.08).
Yongvanich, K., & Guthrie, J. (2005). Extended performance reporting: an examination of Australian mining industry. Accounting Forum, 29(1), 103–119.