Conflicting Conceptualizations of Human Resource Accounting

Adam Steen, Denice Welch, Darcy McCormack

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


    Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to examine the differing perceptions or conceptualizations that have contributed to prevailing views held by accountants on the measurement and reporting of human resources.Design/methodology/approach - The study provides an analysis of extant literature and presentsa theoretical framework on the relationship between HR, intellectual capital and goodwill.Findings -The lack of traction in the progress of accounting for people is due to several factors including tension between employees and management, the demands of internal and external stakeholders, and the historic roots of accounting for labour.Research limitations/implications-The paper provides suggestions as to how the debateregarding the valuing and reporting of human resources may be rekindled.Originality/value - This study highlights the historical context for the lack of traction in the area ofaccounting for people, and the relatively recent development of the Intellectual Capital Statement as a partial but positive development in the area.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)299-312
    Number of pages14
    JournalJournal of Human Resource Costing and Accounting
    Issue number4
    Publication statusPublished - 2012


    Dive into the research topics of 'Conflicting Conceptualizations of Human Resource Accounting'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this