ABSTRACT
To study “accounting in organizations and society” (Burchell et al. 1980) is a “resolution” that many scholars have made over the past thirty years. Accordingly, mainly throughout the 1980s, several studies have focused their attention on the investigation of accounting practices in international comparison, casting light upon the potential to discern in this way the similarities and differences that can exist among them in (dis-)similar countries. Based on the observations reached by these works, classification’s attempts in terms of influencing factors, such as economic, social, political environments, cultural patterns and regulatory styles, have been formulated by researchers and agencies worldwide (Mueller 1967, 1968; Seidler 1967; AAA 1977; Puxty et al. 1987; Doupnik and Salter 1995). In addition, theoretical frameworks have advanced in this respect (Nobes and Parker 1981; Gray 1988; Gray et al. 1995; Zambon 1996). Recently, this comparative trend has expanded and piqued the interest of scholars in other fields of research, for example, accounting historians, who have advocated for a new perspective on the investigation of accounting history, called comparative international accounting history (CIAH) (Carnegie and Napier 2002). In relation to the Non-financial arena, it is interesting to note that numerous works have examined the adoption of intangibles reporting (IR) in comparison. However, such an innovative device has been mainly examined at a micro (organizational) level in terms of management, measurement and disclosure techniques (de Pablos 2002; Vandemaele et al. 2005; Vergauwen and Van Alem 2005; Bozzolan et al. 2006; Guthrie et al. 2006; Chaminade and Roberts 2010). Few studies have investigated its macro (national) potential in terms of recommending initiatives and implementation processes (Lin and Edvinsson 2010). Even fewer studies have sought to elucidate the theories that can explain the similarities and differences that underlie the decision of constituencies to recommend or adopt this reporting practice and their (successful) efforts. In this respect, Tovstiga and Tulugurova (2009) are able to represent a first attempt, by pointing out the differences that exist among regions and sectors in the impact of intellectual capital (IC) practices, which can be related to “macro” characteristics, such as the economic period, the nature of the competitive environment and the national cultural attributes and attitudes. Nonetheless, this example represents an embryonic observation. In light of the recommendations ’ actions, which have existed since the 1990s, intangibles reporting practice found at a governmental level in many countries worldwide has relaunched their economic, social and political situations. Indeed, throughout those years, along with globalization and financialization tendencies, the world witnessed a rise in the importance of knowledge-related aspects, such as technological developments, knowledge-intensive services, new business models, etc.
