What it means is what it does: a comparative analysis of implementing intellectual capital in Norway and Spain

By Cristina Chaminade, Hanno Roberts. 2003

123 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Accounting, Strategy and Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/80d5ce35cae78104ac6ccb6963a5efbd91d06aa5

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Accounting

1. S. Thomson
2. Richard Pike
3. Jing Li
4. A. Vafaei
5. D. Taylor
6. Kamran Ahmed
7. R. Haniffa
8. Saudah Sofian

In Strategy and Management

1. Richard Pike
2. Jing Li
3. R. Haniffa
4. S. Thomson
5. A. Vafaei
6. D. Taylor
7. Kamran Ahmed
8. Saudah Sofian

Citations in the corpus

• Intellectual capital disclosure and corporate governance structure in UK firms (2008, background): “Chaminade and Roberts (2003) investigate the implementation of intellectual capital reporting systems in Norway and Spain.”
• Lifting the lid on the use of content analysis to investigate intellectual capital disclosures (2007, methodology): “The original IC definition used in the US was the difference between a firm’s market and book values (Stewart, 1997, quoted in Chaminade & Roberts, 2003, p. 746).”
• The value relevance of intellectual capital disclosures (2011, methodology): “It is also supported by Chaminade and Roberts (2003)”
• The impact of intellectual capital on firms' market value and financial performance (2011, methodology): “The observed gap between market and book value that has been highlighted in the bibliography (Andrikopoulos, 2005; Chaminade and Roberts, 2003; Fincham and Roslender, 2003; Lev and Radhakrishnan, 2003; Lev and Zarowin, 1999; Lev, 2001; Tseng and Goo, 2005; Zerenler and Gozlu, 2008) can be,…”
• Determinants of intellectual capital disclosure: evidence from Australia (2009, background): “Chaminade and Roberts (2003) propose that culture may determine the emergence of IC management and reporting, and suggest cross-country guidelines cannot be established without the recognition of cultural characteristics.”
• Intellectual capital and corporate performance in knowledge‐intensive SMEs (2007, background): “This combination determines the quality of the firm's IC as discussed in Chaminade and Roberts (2003)”
• An Evidence-Based Taxonomy of Intellectual Capital (2007, background): “Emphasising the importance of the inter-relatedness of IC, Chaminade and Roberts (2003) warn against an excessive focus on measurement both in overall and individual terms, pointing instead to the significance of the management of the processes.”
• The effect of audit committee characteristics on intellectual capital disclosure (2012, unknown): “These IC related assets are critical in (1) a firm’s value-creating activities (e.g. Aboody & Lev, 2000; Chaminade & Roberts, 2003; Habersam & Piber, 2003) and (2) building competitive advantage and creating shareholder value (e.g. Bukh, 2003; Holland, 2003).”
• Intellectual capital, management accounting practices and corporate performance : perceptions of managers (2007, methodology): “A point supported by the work of Chaminade and Roberts (2003)”