Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/95454
|
| Title: | 從企業、分析師及會計師觀點論資訊電子業智慧資本資訊之揭露 |
| Authors: | 饒祥浩 |
| Contributors: | 汪泱若
饒祥浩 |
| Keywords: | 智慧資本
衡量指標
揭露
問卷
Intellectual capital
Measuring indicators
Disclosure
Questionnaire |
| Date: | 2002 |
| Issue Date: | 2016-05-09 16:20:53 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 新經濟時代來臨，企業的財富以及獲利的來源不再侷限於有形的資產，而是來自能為企業帶來競爭優勢的一切知識、能力與人力的總和，以及與組織策略相呼應的運作體系，也就是所謂的「智慧資本」(intellectual capital)。智慧資本不僅對既存的經濟型態產生重大的影響也對財務報表的價值攸關性造成相當大的衝擊，揭露更多的攸關資訊已是未來的趨勢，然而公司、會計師及券商的立場不同，對於資訊揭露的項目、程度與方式亦可能存有差異，因此本研究便從公司、分析師及會計師三種不同的觀點來探討智慧資本相關資訊的揭露。
本研究針對智慧資本的四大構面，人力資本、內部組織資本、外部關係資本與創新資本，各自發展出15項衡量指標，並以公司、會計師及券商為問卷發送的對象，以探討智慧資本衡量指標的重要性、揭露可行性與可能的揭露途徑等三項議題。
本研究發現，在60項的智慧資本衡量指標中共有57項是重要的，且透過因素分析可將指標做進一步的彙整，包括「人力資本」的能力態度、學經歷、人才培育與考核獎酬，「內部組織資本」的工作環境、組織架構、系統運作與資訊投入，「外部關係資本」的業務關係、知名度與經營風險以及「創新資本」的研發能力、創新投入、技術掌握與開發新業務。就整體而言，公司、會計師及券商對指標重要性的判斷頗具共識，並無明顯差異。
在57項重要的指標中，共有29項揭露可行性高的指標與26項揭露可行性低的指標，其他2項則無明顯傾向。其中，可行性低之指標大多屬於難被適當地表達與客觀驗證者，而揭露可行性高之指標則大多屬於量化的資訊或是具有書面的憑證可供確認。此外，公司、會計師及券商對指標揭露可行性判斷的差異並非來自於意見的相左，而是對可行性高低程度的判斷有所不同。
至於在衡量指標可能的揭露途徑上，本研究發現會計師明顯較公司及券商傾向於自願性揭露，而券商對於指標強制性揭露的要求則比公司來的強烈。另外，指標揭露可行性的高低影響指標可能的揭露途徑，揭露可行性越高則越容易傾向於強制性揭露，反之則容易傾向於自願性揭露。
Time of knowledge economy is coming. Wealth and profits of business come from not only tangible assets but also everything which can brings enterprises advantages including knowledge, abilities, human resources and operating systems. This is what called “Intellectual capital”. Intellectual capital makes a big impact on value relevance of financial statements. Disclosing more information is necessary but enterprises, CPAs and brokerage have different stands and opinions each other about items, degrees and ways of information disclosure. So this paper wants to explore disclosure of related information of intellectual capital from different angles.
Based on four dimensions of intellectual capital — human resources capital, internal organization capital, external relationship capital and innovation capital, a questionnaire is developed. This questionnaire includes four dimensions, 60 indicators (each dimension has 15 indicators) and three main questions — degree of importance of indicators, degree of indicators which can be disclosed adequately and adequate ways of disclosure (compulsive or voluntary). Questionnaires are sent to three different groups — enterprises, CPAs and brokerage.
The empirical results indicate that 57 out of 60 indicators are important and can be summarized to “ability and attitude”, “education and career”, “workforce education” and “examination and compensation” from “human resources capital”; “working environment”, “organization structure”, “operating system” and “information input” from “internal organization capital”; “business relationship”, “popularity”, and “business risk” of “external relationship capital”; “ability of research and development”, “innovation input”, “held technology” and “new business development” from “innovation capital”. In addition, Judgments on degree of importance of indicators do not have significant differences between enterprises, CPAs and securities.
In 57 important indicators, there are 29 indicators which can be disclosed adequately and 26 indicators which can not (the rest indicators do not have significant tendency). The indicators which can not be disclosed adequately are almost which can not be expressed well or verified objectively. The indicators which can be disclosed adequately are those numbered information or have objective verified documents. Differences between enterprises, CPAs and securities do not come from contrary opinions but different judgments on degree.
About adequate disclosing ways of indicators, CPAs tend to voluntary disclosure much more than enterprises and securities. Securities want more compulsive disclosures than enterprises. Whether an indicator can be expressed adequately will influence adequate disclosing ways of indicators. The more an indicator can be expressed adequately, the more tendencies of compulsive disclosure will have. |
| Reference: | 一、中文部分
李振昌譯(Charles Leadbeater 原著)，2001，知識經濟大趨勢，台北：時報。
宋偉航譯(Thomas Stewart 原著)，1998，智慧資本─資訊時代的企業利基，台北：智庫。
林郁析，2000，財務資訊與無形資產密集企業價值攸關性之探討，國立政治大學會計學研究所未出版碩士論文。
林大容譯(Leif Edvinsson, and Michael S. Malone 原著)，1999，智慧資本─如何衡量資訊時代無形資產的價值，台北：臉譜。
吳秀娟，2000，企業市場價值與淨值差異影響因素之研究─以我國資訊電子業為例，國立政治大學會計學研究所未出版碩士論文。
施純協，祥宇開發智能資本編譯小組譯(Johan Roos, Goran Roos, Nicola C. Dragonetti and Leif Edvinsson 原著)，2000，智能資本，台北：知行。
馬秀如、劉正田、俞洪昭、諶家蘭，1999，資訊軟體業─無形資產鑑價制度之研究，台灣證券交易所股份有限公司委託研究報告。
陳學庸，2001，主機板製造廠商策略群組與經營績效關聯性之研究，國立政治大學會計學研究所未出版碩士論文。
莫菲譯(Karl Erik Sveiby原著)，1999，無形資產致勝策略，台北：圓智。
黃宛華，1999，資訊服務業智慧資本之研究，國立政治大學科技管理研究所未出版碩士論文。
謝月香，2000，無形資產，國立成功大學會計學研究所未出版碩士論文。
二、英文部分
Amir, E., and B. Lev. 1996. Value-relevance of non-financial information: The wireless communication industry. Journal of Accounting and Economics 22: 3-30.
Collins, D., C. Maydew, and I. Weiss. 1997. Changes in the value-relevance of earnings and book values over the past forty years. Journal of Accounting and Economics 18: 3-42.
Ely, K., and G. Waymire. 1999. Accounting standard-setting organizations and earnings relevance: longitudinal evidence form NYSE. Journal of Accounting and Research 37 (2): 293-317.
Financial Accounting Standards Board, FASB. 2001. FASB No.142: Goodwill and other assets.
Francis, J., and K. Schipper. 1999. Have financial statements lost their relevance? Journal of Accounting Research 37 (Supplement): 319-352.
International Accounting Standards Committee, IASC. 1998. IAS No.38: Intangible assets.
Lev, B., and P. Zarowin. 1999. The boundaries of financial reporting and how to extend them. Journal of Accounting Research 37 (2): 353-389. |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
會計學系 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#A2010000254 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [會計學系] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
