Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Intellectual Capital in German Non-profit Organisations pp 79–97Cite as

Theoretical Framework for Intellectual Capital Reporting of NPOs

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Contributions to Management Science ((MANAGEMENT SC.))

Abstract

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

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abhayawansa, S. A. (2014). A review of guidelines and frameworks on external reporting of intellectual capital. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 15(1), 100–141. doi:10.1108/JIC-04-2013-0046.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adelberg, A. H. (1983). The accounting syntactic complexity formula: A new instrument for predicting the readability of selected accounting communications. Accounting and Business Research, 13(51), 163–175. doi:10.1080/00014788.1983.9729749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • An, Y., Davey, H., & Eggleton, I. R. C. (2011). Towards a comprehensive theoretical framework for voluntary IC disclosure. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 12(4), 571–585. doi:10.1108/14691931111181733.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arvidsson, S. (2011). Disclosure of non-financial information in the annual report: A management-team perspective. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 12(2), 277–300. doi:10.1108/14691931111123421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120. doi:10.1177/014920639101700108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beattie, V. (2013, April 16). Conversation with Vivien Beattie at BAFA Annual Conference 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beattie, V., & Smith, S. J. (2013). Value creation and business models: Refocusing the intellectual capital debate. The British Accounting Review, 45(4), 234–254. doi:10.1016/j.bar.2013.06.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, N., & Connell, B. (2000). Intellectual capital: Current issues and policy implications. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 1(3), 206–240. doi:10.1108/14691930010350792.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bronzetti, G., Mazzotta, R., Puntillo, P., Silvestri, A., & Veltri, S. (2011). Intellectual capital reporting practices in the non-profit sector. Sumy: Virtus Interpress. Accessed July 31, 2012, from http://virtusinterpress.com/IMG/pdf/Sample_Chapter-2.pdf

  • Brüggen, A., Vergauwen, P., & Dao, M. (2009). Determinants of intellectual capital disclosure: Evidence from Australia. Management Decision, 47(2), 233–245. doi:10.1108/00251740910938894.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brugha, R., & Varvasovszky, Z. (2000). Stakeholder analysis: A review. Health Policy and Planning, 15(3), 239–246. doi:10.1093/heapol/15.3.239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deephouse, D. L., & Suchman, M. C. (2008). Legitimacy in organizational institutionalism. In R. Greenwood et al. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 49–77). London: SAGE.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Deutsches Rechnungslegungs Standards Commitee e.V. (2012). Deutscher Rechnungslegungs Standard Nr. 20 (DRS 20) (pp. 1–56). Accessed November 23, 2015, from www.drsc.de/docs/press_releases/2012/120928_DRS20_nearfinal.pdf

  • Diehl, J. (2008). Die Unicef-Krise: Hilfswerk sucht Hilfe. Spiegel Online. Accessed February 20, 2014, from http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/unicef-krise-hilfswerk-sucht-hilfe-a-536641.html

  • DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dumay, J., & Cai, L. (2015). Using content analysis as a research methodology for investigating intellectual capital disclosure: A critique. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 16(1), 121–155. doi:10.1108/JIC-04-2014-0043.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edvinsson, L. (2013). IC 21: Reflections from 21 years of IC practice and theory. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 14(1), 163–172. doi:10.1108/14691931311289075.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edvinsson, L., & Sullivan, P. (1996). Developing a model for managing intellectual capital. European Management Journal, 14(4), 356–364. doi:10.1016/0263-2373(96)00022-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, M. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. The Academy of Management Journal, 14(1), 57–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elsbach, K. D., & Sutton, R. I. (1992). Acquiring organizational legitimacy through illegitimate actions: A marriage of institutional and impression management theories. Academy of Management Journal, 35(4), 699–738. doi:10.2307/256313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, A., Guthrie, J., Steane, P., Roos, G., & Pike, S. (2003). Mapping stakeholder perceptions for a third sector organization. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 4(4), 505–527. doi:10.1108/14691930310504536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E., & McVea, J. A. (2001). A stakeholder approach to strategic management. Charlottesville, VA. doi:10.2139/ssrn.263511.

  • Göbel, E. (2002). Neue Institutionenökonomik. Stuttgart: Lucius & Lucius Verlagsgesellschft mbH.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Sahlin, K., & Suddaby, R. (2008). Introduction. In R. Greenwood et al. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 1–46). London: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guthrie, J., Petty, R., Yongvanich, K., & Ricceri, F. (2004). Using content analysis as a research method to inquire into intellectual capital reporting. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 5(2), 282–293. doi:10.1108/14691930410533704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillman, A. J., Withers, M. C., & Collins, B. J. (2009). Resource dependence theory: A review. Journal of Management, 35(6), 1404–1427. doi:10.1177/0149206309343469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jepperson, R. (1991). Institutions, institutional effects, and institutionalism. In W. Powell & P. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 143–163). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kong, E. (2007). The strategic importance of intellectual capital in the non-profit sector. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 8(4), 721–731. doi:10.1108/14691930710830864.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • KPMG. (2012). Rechnungslegung in der Praxis – Bilanzierungs- und Bewertungsfragen nach deutschem Recht bei Non-Profit-Organisationen, (Homepage). Accessed January 08, 2014, from http://www.kpmg.com/DE/de/Bibliothek/2012/Seiten/Rechnungslegung-in-der-Praxis.aspx

  • Kuhnle, H., & Banzhaf, J. (2006). Finanzkommunikation unter IFRS. München: Verlag Franz Vahlen GmbH.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakes, B. (1998). NPO im Spannungsfeld von Solidarität und Wettbewerb. In R. Graf Strachwitz (Ed.), Dritter Sektor – Dritte Kraft: Versuch einer Standortbestimmung (pp. 447–462). Stuttgart: Raabe Verlags-GmbH.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langer, A., & Schröer, A. (2011). Professionalisierung in nonprofit management. In A. Langer & A. Schröer (Eds.), Professionalisierung in nonprofit management (pp. 9–31). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lichtsteiner, H., Gmür, M., Giroud, C., & Schauer, R. (2013). Das Freiburger Management-Modell für Nonprofit Organisationen (7th ed.). Bern: Haupt Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Dwyer, B., Owen, D., & Unerman, J. (2011). Seeking legitimacy for new assurance forms: The case of assurance on sustainability reporting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 36(1), 31–52. doi:10.1016/j.aos.2011.01.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, D., Biggart, N., & Dick, B. (2008). Is the new institutionalism a theory? In R. Greenwood et al. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 739–768). London: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, L. M. (2002). The impact of financial information and voluntary disclosure on contributions to not-for-profit organizations: A field-based experiment. Houston, TX: University of Houston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petrash, G. (1996). Dow’ s journey to a knowledge value management culture. European Management Journal, 73(4), 365–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (2003). The external control of organizations. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Post, J. E., Preston, L. E., & Sachs, S. (2002). Managing the extended enterprise – The new stakeholder view. California Management Review, 45(1), 6–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell, W. W., & DiMaggio, P. J. (1991). Introduction. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 1–38). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raynard, P. (1998). Coming together. A review of contemporary approaches to social accounting, auditing and reporting in non-profit organisations. Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 1471–1479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed, M. S., Graves, A., Dandy, N., Posthumus, H., Hubacek, K., Morris, J., et al. (2009). Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(5), 1933–1949. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.01.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W. R. (2013). Institutions and organizations (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sveiby, K.-E. (1997). The new organizational wealth (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

    Google Scholar 

  • The IIRC. (2011). Towards integrated reporting – communicating value in the 21st century. Accessed May 15, 2012, from http://www.theiirc.org/discussion-paper/

  • Theuvsen, L. (2011). Professionalisierung des Nonprofit-Managements durch Governance-Kodizes: Eine Analyse der Transparenzwirkung. In A. Langer & A. Schröer (Eds.), Professionalisierung in nonprofit management (pp. 131–149). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • van Broekhoven, R. A. (2008). Engaging Donors’ Trust. Accessed February 20, 2014, from http://www.icfo.org/ICFO-Publications

  • Varvasovszky, Z., & Brugha, R. (2000). How to do (or not to do)... A stakeholder analysis. Health Policy and Planning, 15(3), 338–345. doi:10.1093/heapol/15.3.338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilke, B. (2008). Die “UNICEF-Krise” – Lehren, Chancen und Risiken für das deutsche Spendenwesen. In Spenden-Siegel FORUM 2008. Berlin: Deutsches Zentralinstitut für soziale Fragen (DZI). Accessed February 20, 2014, from http://www.dzi.de/spenderberatung/das-spenden-siegel/spenden-siegelforum/spenden-siegelforum-2008/

  • Zerfaß, A. (2009). Immaterielle Werte und Unternehmenskommunikation – Herausforderungen für das Kommunikationsmanagement. In K. Möller, M. Piwinger, & A. Zerfaß (Eds.), Immaterielle Vermögenswerte – Bewertung, Berichterstattung und Kommunikation (pp. 23–48). Stuttgart: Schäffer-Poeschel Verlag Stuttgart.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Hamburg University of Applied Sciences, Hamburg, Germany

    Katrin Blankenburg

Authors
  1. Katrin Blankenburg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Blankenburg, K. (2018). Theoretical Framework for Intellectual Capital Reporting of NPOs. In: Intellectual Capital in German Non-profit Organisations. Contributions to Management Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62655-0_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation