[雙語(yǔ)翻譯]無(wú)形資產(chǎn)外文翻譯--無(wú)形資產(chǎn)——公司成功的新維度（英文）

1、 Procedia Economics and Finance 3 ( 2012 ) 304 – 308 2212-6716 © 2012 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and peer review under responsibility of Emerging Markets Queries in Finance and Business

2、 local organization. doi: 10.1016/S2212-5671(12)00156-6 Emerging Markets Queries in Finance and BusinessThe Intangible Assets A New Dimension in The Company'sSuccessAda Lorena Niculitaa,*, Adriana Florina Popaa, Flo

3、rentin Caloianaa Bucharest University of Economic Studies, 6, Romana Square, district 1, Bucharest, 010374, RomaniaAbstractThis paper is based on the assumption that there is a strong influence between the intangible ass

4、ets on the financial value and the performance of a business. This is more obvious especially in the case of the businesses which require a considerable creativity or are science-based. Among others, we can mention the s

5、ignificant difference between the market value and the net book value of the intangible assets. In the best case scenario,for. We talk about further implication when the auditors certify that the balance sheet shows the

6、fair view of the financial position of business in spite of the fact that it is not showing all the values involved. There have been only few researches in this field have and there is no model available, which could b

7、e considered to be free from major limitations. The major limitation of the existing models is that there is a clear difficulty to correctly identify all types of intangible assets and their influence inside a business.

8、 These are the facts that underlie our decision to start a research in this domain. Our study aims to propose a realistic practice for the valuation and accounting of intangibles the know-his field by other researchers.

9、© 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Emerging Markets Queries in Finance and Business local organizationKey words: intangible assets; valuation; know-how; performan

10、ce; fair view* Corresponding author. Tel.: +4-0735-695-555. E-mail address: ada.niculita@gmail.comAvailable online at www.sciencedirect.com© 2012 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and peer review und

11、er responsibility of Emerging Markets Queries in Finance and Business local organization.Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.306 Ada Lorena Niculita et al. / Procedia Economics

12、and Finance 3 ( 2012 ) 304 – 308 2. Considerations on social innovation capital Much has been said and written about the intellectual capital since Tom Stewart first started writing about it in Fortunes magazine S

13、tewart 1994. Since then, KM has been firmly linked to intellectual capital in various ways, prominently being the approach to knowledge - personal and organizational as worthy of the term rporation usually exceed the

14、book value of its tangible assets, and so intangible must as well have financial value. In earlier examinations carried out by scholars McElroy 2002 IC is all about reflecting the value of intangibles in the attempt to

15、 compute their impact on corporate valuations; it follow that the capacity to produce and integrate knowledge itself should find a way in related schemes. Moreover, it supposes that the only thing potentially more valu

16、able to a firm than its prized intellectual capital should be its institutional and ongoing capacity to produce it. While fully into account. While we see the evidence of this omission in the early Skandia model and in

17、many others since then, we have yet to see any truly rigorous attempts to incorporate social capital in the taxonomies of IC being debated in leading academic circles. This in itself becomes an issue as the knowledge l

18、ife cycle is nothing but a form of social capital. It is social in the sense that it is a particular kind of process carried out by the people in social settings, and it is capital in the sense that its performance can

19、 add value financial and otherwise to the lives of people involved and the enterprises f which they are part of. Clearly, the quality and performance of knowledge processing has financial valuation implications in a co

20、mpany. Therefore, this particular kind of intangible asset is a social capital of an innovation sort. The capacity to innovate sustainably and with regularity and reliability should be treated as deserving of value i

21、tself. Thus, no comprehensive attempt to reflect the categorization of IC should be seen as complete until and unless it includes both social capital, broadly, and social innovation capital, in particular, as the only

22、thing more valuable than valuable organizational knowledge may be the organizational capacity to produce it. While most IC valuation and reporting schemes tend to focus only on object or outcomes in their approach to

23、measurement, processes can add value as well. Further, the capacity to continuously learn and innovate on a high-performance basis is, itself, more valuable to a firm than any IC outcomes it might produce, such as pate

24、nts or technologies. The value of most innovations is ephemeral and so learning must be a continuous source of new knowledge and innovation responding to the epistemic problems that almost always rise from existing kno

25、wledge. In this case we should consider adding social capital in its various forms to either side of the value of a firm by dampening its capacity to learn and there could be in some cases not seen as an asset at all, bu

26、t as a liability. Clearly, the knowledge life cycle is a major counted for as an asset. 3. Biased linearity Among the first principles of the new KM is the view of organizations as complex adaptive systems. Outcomes are

27、 the nonlinear, emergent results of countless interactions between agents, who each have their own rule sets, are autonomous and who at time collectively work together toward achieving common goals, but at other time w

28、ork either independently or against one another and still achieve their goals. In complex adaptive systems adding 1 to 1 is more likely to add to 3, 4 7 or even 10, rather than 2. This is the anathema to conventional a

29、ccounting. Balance sheets and income statements are the products of linear, or at least reductive, thinking. There is no place in them for taking account of emerging processes. Value outcomes may be describes and expla