Abstract

One of the problems of Ukrainian enterprises at the present stage of economic development is the optimization the volume and structure of their assets through a tendency of their value underestimation. Only a small part of the intangible assets are displayed now on the balance of Ukrainian enterprises as intangible assets. This significantly reduces the competitiveness of enterprises at both the local and global markets. And due to that at M & A agreements or the procedure of IPO Ukrainian companies are undervalued, and they are considerably weaker and cheaper compared with foreign ones. The aim of the article. The aim of the article is to compare the structure of intangible assets, which are recognized in the financial statements of different countries, and to develop proposals on for intangible assets types differing in their structure on the Ukrainian enterprises. The results of the analysis. World practice shows quite different structure of intangible assets in different countries of the world. It was defined, that it is impossible to identify any one dominant element in the structure of intangible assets of all countries. Although the membership of  investigated countries of Europe in a single economic organization – the European Union, and commonality of economic laws and the use of single currency euro by Netherlands, Germany, Italy, Spain, France, it should be noted that the intangible assets structure in each country is different, with different elements, which occupy the largest share. As the significant discrepancies in official data acquires, which are determined in the different countries, an attempt was made to summarize the data, if only to bring them into a single structure. Due to it was made the simplification, according to which all components of the intangible assets of these countries have been grouped for the three categories, which are often defined in the financial statements: brand, information resources and people capital. It is determined the share benefits of human capital in the structure of intangible assets of European countries (UK, Germany, France, the Netherlands) or brand (Spain, Italy), instead of it in the United States and especially in Japan the information resources significantly prevail over the share. But in Sweden and the Netherlands, the picture is more varied, taking into consideration the more extensive reporting system of intangible assets, and more kinds of intangible assets, which are defined in these countries. Unfortunately, according to statistical reports in Ukraine there are no records of intangible assets structure (in contrast to the structure of basic or current assets) at the macro level. A rough estimation can be obtained only at the cost structure of innovations in the economy. Such a structure is not entirely responsible with foreign ones due to the fact that the costs of research and development works with the software (which are intangible), also includes the cost of material goods acquisition (machinery, equipment etc.). This significantly increases the share of this particular part of the cost for research and development work at the enterprises in Ukraine. However, it is clear that for Ukraine the components of the information resources of enterprises are dominated. The underestimating of brand enterprises problem looks particularly acute in this study for the enterprises of Ukraine. From this it arises the need for further development of methods to increase the attractiveness of Ukrainian enterprises through the development of their brand. Conclusions and directions of further researches. The expansion of existing and, most importantly, recorded in the structure of the balance sheet types intangible assets will allow not only to increase to the companies of  Ukraine their own value (that is important in M & A and IPO transactions), but also to find new sources of own funds (due to depreciation of more intangible assets types).

Keywords: intangible assets, brand, peoples capital, informational resources, organizational capital, innovation loses, science and research works

JEL Classification: E22, D83.

Cite as: Gorovyi, D. (2016). Comparison analysis of enterprise intangible assets structure in Ukraine and over the world. Marketing and Management of Innovations, 4, 256-268. https://doi.org/10.21272/mmi.2016.4-22

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

References

1. Bontis, N. (2002). Intellectual Capital Disclosure in Canadian Corporations. Journal of Human Resource Costing & Accounting. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download? doi=10.1.1.2.7427&rep=rep1&type=pdf [in English].
2. Chun Wei Choo, & Bontis, N. (2002). The Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital and Organizational Knowledge. New York: Oxford University Press [in English].
3. Caplan, R.S., & Norton, D.P. (2005). Strategicheskie karty: Transformatsiya nematerialnyh aktiviv v materialnye rezultaty [Strategic carts: Transformation of intangible assets in material results]. Moscow: Olimp-Biznes [in Russian].
4. Luthy, D.H. (1998). Intellectual capital and its measurement. Proc. of the Asian Pacific Interdisciplinary Research in Accounting Conference (APIRA) Utah. Retrieved from www3.bus.osaka-cu.ac.jp [in English].
5. Roos, J., Roos, G., Dragonetti, N.C., & Edvinsson, L. (1997). Intellectual Capital: Navigating in the New Business Landscape. New York: Macmillan, Houndsmills, Basingtoke [in English].
6. Sullivan, P.H. Jr., & Sullivan, P.H. Sr. (2000). Valuing intangibles companies. An intellectual capital approach. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 1, 4. Retrieved from http://home.bi.no/fgl99011/Bok2215/IK-artikkel-3.pdf [in English].
7. Stewart, T.A. (1997). Intellectual Capital. The New Wealth of Organizations. New York: Doubleday Business [in English].
8. Doronina, M.S. (2002). Upravlinnya ekonomichnymy i sotsialnymy protsesamy pidpryemstva [Economic and social enterprises processes management]. Kharkiv, KhEDEU [in Ukrainian].
9. Kendiukhov, O.V. (2011). Intellektualnyi capital pidpryemstva: gnoseologia ekonomichnoyi kategoriyi [Intellectual capital of the  enterprise: gnoseology of economic category]. Visnyk Donetskogo uniersytetu ekonomiky i prava – Herald of Donetsk University of Economics and Law, 2, 12-16 [in Ukrainian].
10. Kozyriev, A.N. (2003). Otsenka stoimosti nematerialnyh aktivov i intellektualnoy sobstvennosti [Intangible assets and intellectual property value assement]. Moscow: Interreklama [in Russian].
11. Kuzmin, O.Ye., & Lipich, O.A. (2011). Kontseptualni zasady upravlinnya intelektualnym kapitalom pidpryyemstva [Conceptual basis of enterprise intellectual capital management]. Aktualni problemy ekonomiky – Actual Problems of Economics, 11(125), 137-144 [in Ukrainian].
12. Illiashenko, S.M. (2008). Aktualni problemy upravlinnia intelektualnym kapitalom pidpryyemstva [Actual problems of enterprise intellectual capital management]. Mekhanizm rehulyuvannia ekomiky – Mechanism of economics regulation, 2, 92-102 [in Ukrainian].
13. Golysheva, Ye.О. (2013). Optymizatsiia systemy upravlinnya spozhyvchim kapitalom pidpryiemstva [Optimization of enterprise consumer capital management system]. Marketing i menedzhment innovatsiy – Innovation marketing and management, 4, 236-249 [in Ukrainian].
14. Blaug, R., & Leckhi, R. (2009). Accounting for intangibles: Financial reporting and value creation in the knowledge economy. A Research Report for The Work Foundation’s Knowledge Economy Programme. Retrieved from http://www.researchrepublic.com/publications/116-accounting-for-intangibles-financial-reporting-and-value-creation-in-the-knowledge-economy [in English].
15. Corrado, C., Hulten, Ch., & Sichel, D. (2009). Intangible Capital and U.S. Economic Growth. conference-board.org. Retrieved from www.conference-board.org/pdf_free/Intangible Capital_USEconomy.pdf [in English].
16. Edquist, H. (2009). How much does Sweden invest in intangible assets? IFN Working Paper, 785. Retrieved from http://ebookbrowse.com /presentation- coinvest-harald -edquist-pdf-d283644344 [in English].
17. van Rooijen-Horsten, M., van den Bergen, D., & Tanriseven, M. (2008). Intangible capital in the Netherlands: A benchmark. Statistics Netherlands, Voorburg/Heerlen. Retrieved from www.cbs.nl/NR/rdonlyres/DE0167DE-BFB8-4EA1-A55C-FF0A5AFCBA32/0/200801x10pub.pdf/ [in English].
18. Crass, D., Licht, G., & Peters, B. (2009). Intangible Assets and Investments at the Sector Level – Empirical Evidence for Germany. Competitiveness, Innovation and Intangible Investments in Europe. ZEW/TCBE. Discussion Paper, 14-049. Retrieved from http://ftp.zew.de/pub/zew-docs/gutachten/Coinvest_D10_Germany_ZEW_final.pdf [in English].
19. EuroStat. ec.europa.eu. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat  [in English].
20. World Bank. data.worldbank.org. Retrieved from http://data.worldbank.org  [in English].
21. Global Open Data. index.okfn.org. Retrieved from http://index.okfn.org/dataset/statistics/ [in English].
22. UN Data. data.un.org. Retrieved from http://data.un.org [in English].
23. Fukao, K., Hamagata, S., Miyagawa, T., & Tonogi, K. (2009). Intangible Investment in Japan: Measurement and Contribution to Economic Growth. www.rieti.go.jp. Retrieved from http://www.rieti.go.jp/jp/publications/dp/07e034.pdf [in English].
24. Derzhavna sluzhba statystyky Ukrainy (Derzhstat) / Nauka, tekhnologii ta innovatsii [State Service of Statistics in Ukraine / Science, Tekhnology and Innovation]. www.ukrstat.gov.ua. Retrieved from http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua [in Ukrainian].
25. Federalnaya sluzhba gosudarstvennoy statistiki (Rosstat) [Federal Service of State Statistics]. www.gks.ru. Retrieved from http://www.gks.ru/wps/wcm/connect/rosstat_main/rosstat/ru/ statistics/science_and_ innovations/science/# [in Russian].