by Ulf Johanson, Personnel Economics Institute, School of Business, Stockholm University
Article based on Presentation at CHANGING WORKPLACE STRATEGIES: ACHIEVING BETTER OUTCOMES FOR ENTERPRISES, WORKERS AND SOCIETY. Workshop 6: Speech at International Conference Organised by the Government of Canada, and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Hosted by the Minister of Labour, Canada. 2 - 3 December 1996 Chateau Laurier, Ottawa
This article answers the following questions:
During the last 10 years, the difference between market and book value among Swedish companies on the stock exchange has increased substantially, as can be seen in Figure 1:
Figure 1. The difference between market and book value among Swedish companies on the stock exchange from 1985 to 1994.
In 1994 the figures in the US and the Netherlands were about the same (reference 1).
If the companies are ranked according to dependency on human resources and the highest decile (knowledge-based firms) is compared with the lowest decile (capital-intensive firms), then a significant difference is revealed.
Figure 2. A comparison between the most and the least human capital dependent companies on the Swedish stock exchange from 1985 to 1994 with respect to the difference in market and book value.
This means that investments in human resources represent a significantly higher value to the capital market today compared with 10 years ago.
Given the assumption that an average employee has the same opportunity to influence the effectiveness of a firm, the potential value of his/her performance has increased significantly during the last 10 years. The market value in 1985 was 2.6 times the wage costs and in 1994 it was 4.7 times the wage costs.
Another indication of the shift is that accounted goodwill for companies listed on the Stockholm stock exchange grew between 1975-92 from less than 1 BSEK to 37 BSEK, or from less than 1% of the total stock exchange value to more than 7%.
In a recently terminated investigation, it was shown that the return on a stock portfolio of knowledge-based firms at the Stockholm stock exchange was significantly higher than the return on a portfolio that was based on firms with a higher dependency on tangible assets.
Figure 3. A comparison of the rate of return on different portfolios with respect to dependency on human capital. Cumulative risk-adjusted rate of return.
The companies were ranked in accordance with their dependency on human resources. The daily risk-adjusted return was compared with the daily stock market index from 1993 to 1995. In Figure 3, the cumulative average return for each portfolio is depicted. There was no evidence that the investors perceived knowledge-based firms as involving more risk than firms with a higher dependency on tangible assets.
The present author suggests that if the investors had performed a correct valuation of investments in human resources in advance, there would not have been any significant difference between the three portfolios. Because there was a significant difference, investments in human resources were underestimated.
From these figures a plausible conclusion from a capital market point of view, is that there are indications of a shift in the relative importance of tangible and intangible assets.
Another indication is the growing interest in applying the ideas underlying the balanced score card (BSC) or the HRCA concepts. This growing interest can be seen among academics as well as practitioners.
During the last years efforts have been made to grasp the deceptive question of the actual use of HRCA in Sweden. The question is deceitfully clever because there are considerable difficulties that prevent one from obtaining a reliable picture of its use. What are the criteria that indicate that HRCA is being used? (1) Is it the number of produced human resource financial statements, (2) the number of produced costings, (3) a different way of thinking, or something else? The first criterion is not difficult to measure, but the other two do present measuring problems. In addition, the concept of HRCA is not easily distinguished from other concepts that also aim at increasing the transparency of investments in intangible assets (e.g., the BSC concept).
Despite these problems, studies in Sweden show a surprisingly high rate of company use of HRCA and BSC.
1. In a study with human resource managers in companies located in the Stockholm area and with more than 200 employees, 70% of the respondents said that they were applying HRCA in some way. Most of the organisations had started to do so in the beginning of the 1990s.
2. Roughly, 20% of local labour unions for white collar workers claim that they used HRCA in their decision making process.
3. In an investigation conducted by the Swedish Association of Local Government, it was found that 22% of the 276 respondents had decided to use HRA. Only from 5 to 15% of personnel, accounting, and financial managers asserted they were not interested in HRCA.
4. Finally, 43 Swedish companies used a model based on the balance scorecard concept in their 1994 annual report.
A third indication is how HRCA has been perceived by managers.
In five studies, representing seven cases, about 100 financial, line, and personnel managers were interviewed concerning their reactions to the implementation of HRCA. The results indicate that attitudes towards HRCA were positive in all these studies. Managers perceive that HRCA has a goal to achieve. It is obvious from most of these cases that the discovery of hidden costs, incomes and values serves as a very strong incitement to use HRCA in the future.
The following two quotations illustrate how the individuals reference frame can change.
Previously, I only thought in terms of personnel costs. I think in another way now. What is it worth... how much may it cost? I have started to look at things in a different light. If we invest in this person - we can get something in return. I hadn't realised that before. I only regarded it as a problem. It costs money.
I have always thought that personnel are more valuable than machines and now HRCA has given us a new tool to work with.
In these passages, it is indicated that the absence of addressing the issue of HRCA has resulted in an inefficient allocation of resources. There seem to have been underinvestments in human resources. However, if the issue of HRCA is addressed, then a change in the resource allocation will occur.
These reactions may be interpreted as indicating a shift in the relative importance of human capital.
If we make the assumption that the production of literature, education and research in business economics mirrors these problems that enterprises have to deal with, then there are further strong indications of a shift.
Concerning Swedish literature, there are only a handful of books dealing with HRCA in the beginning of the 1980s. Today, there are probably between 50 and 100 books.
At many Swedish universities (e.g., the School of Business at Stockholm University) new enrolled students (nearly 1,000/year) become acquainted with the HRCA concept.
Since the end of the 1980s, a special research institute (Personnel Economics Institute), with nearly 20 researchers, has been performing studies concerning HRCA issues. Moreover the Institute recently launched the “Journal of Human Resource Costing and Accounting“.
During the last couple of years there has been a debate going on in some Swedish newspapers regarding the issue of increasing the transparency of investments in intangibles.
This year a new, commercially based, key-ratio institute with the aim of providing comparable information on intangibles between different lines of business was established. A general interest to participate and share information has been suprisingly great.
5. Efforts on a society level to increase the transparency of intangibles
The fifth indication concerns efforts on a societal perspective to increase the transparency of investments in intangibles.
In 1991, the Swedish government proposed a legal obligation for organisations with more than 100 employees to provide an account of personnel costs (e.g., personnel turnover, sickness leave, training, and working environment) in the annual report. The proposal was withdrawn for many reasons, but the fact that most of the bodies to which the proposed legislation was submitted for consideration were positive to the idea of having better information of personnel costs, can be taken as an indication that the demand for this is strong.
During the last year, the question of changes in the legislation has been reconsidered. After a debate in the Parliament, the standing committee on civil law legislation emphasised the importance of investigating the necessity of changing the legislation with respect to the treatment of human capital.
Both the Swedish Commission for the Promotion of Adult Education and Training and the Swedish Commission for Sickness and Work Injury are also addressing the issue. The last Commission emphasises the importance of strengthening the awareness of employers of the consequences on profitability of investments in rehabilitation and preventive measures. They suggest that different measures should be taken to increase this awareness, including HRCA methods.
In my country, there are strong indications of a shift in the relative importance of intangibles and, as a consequence, there is a greater demand for better information.
There are two different approaches, namely HRCA and the BSC concepts.
The BSC has been on the agenda for almost 10 years. It intends to balance the traditional financial perspective with three non-financial elements; customers, internal processes and innovation/improvement. Sveiby, representing a similar school of thought, uses the following concepts: employees competence, internal structure, and external structure. He distinguishes between the following different kinds of intangibles; human capital, market capital, and structure capital.
Sveiby (ref) suggests the use of an Intangible Assets Monitor.
One basic idea underlying the BSC concept involves the avoidance of financial measures. Sveiby argues:
It is tempting to try to design a measuring system equivalent of the double entry bookkeeping with money as the common denominator. It is an established framework with definitions and standards and therefore "common sense". This is precisely the reason why we should break with it. I believe that the combination of a manufacturing perspective and a financial focus prevents managers from seeing the new, largely intangible, world that is emerging. If we measure the new with the tools of the old, we won't see the new.
Interestingly, the principal argument used by Sveiby against HRCA is the same argument employed by advocates of HRCA to promote its use. HRCA advocates mean that the non-financial indicators of human resources that have been used for a long time are not strong enough to influence managerial action. By using monetary figures, including costs, incomes, and values, on problems or measures normally not described in a monetary way, it is believed that new insights may emerge.
This incongruence may have to do with who it is that plays the role of the advocate. It is my belief that financial and accounting people are overrepresented among advocates of the BSC concept, whereas human resource people are overrepresented among those who support HRCA.
HRCA has been on the research agenda for about 30 years and comprises Human Resource Accounting (HRA) as well as costing human resources, which is often termed utility analysis. The HRA tradition is represented by accountants while the utility analysis tradition is represented by behavioural scientists. HRA and utility analysis were first brought up on the research agenda in the beginning of the 1960s.
HRA advanced rapidly to the upper reaches of the research agenda, but by the end of the 1970s interest declined within both the academic and the corporate worlds. According to Flamholtz, a widespread, though erroneous, belief spread suggesting that HRA was concerned only with treating people as financial objects.:
Although preparing financial statements that included human resources was undoubtedly a part of HRA, it was by far not the most significant part. Yet precisely because it was dramatic and innovative, "putting people on the balance sheet" became the dominant image of HRA for many people.
The debate was, to a large degree, focused on the appropriateness of valuing human resources on the balance sheet, a debate that still remains today. In the 1970s and 1980s, many experiments dealing with the influence of HRCA information on decision-making were carried out.
In the 1980s, an intensive development that largely focused on personnel selection problems took place within utility analysis.
It has recently been claimed that HRA "has progressed at something less than a snail's pace in the last two decades". Thus Scarpello & Theeke intimate that HRA is an interesting concept, but it is hard to understand why there has not been a serious effort to develop valid and reliable measures. Roslender & Dyson have argued that HRA has failed to develop much in the way of practical applications. This is rather disturbing because the 1990s are a time when accounting for the worth of employees is probably more necessary than ever before. During the last year interest in HRA has been on the rise.
HRCA has mostly been occupied with the development of models from a management control perspective. Evaluative studies of the profitability of investments in human capital are scarce, perhaps apart from investments in training and education. It is often suggested that rehabilitation measures are profitable for the organisation. Cost/income evaluations of rehabilitation measures from an organisational perspective, however, are very uncommon, and knowledge about the efficiency of rehabilitation measures is lacking. Of 24 evaluations of workplace health promotion programmes between 1980 and 1991, an area closely linked to rehabilitation, only a few of them have dealt with the issue of efficiency.
There are many studies showing that HRCA works in terms of changed decisions, attitudes, cognition's and actions. Most of these studies have been carried out from a management control or a persuasion support perspective.
Existing studies concerning the usefulness of HRCA can be classified into three categories:
(1) Influence on decision making by HRCA information
(2) Influence on individual learning processes by the application of HRCA
(3) Influence on organisational learning processes by the application of HRCA
When analysing the usefulness of HRCA different aspects have to be considered. First, there is a difference between the information produced by the application of HRCA (single-loop learning) and the implementation of the concept of HRCA (double-loop learning). Existing studies concerning decision making (1) have largely been concentrated on the single-loop aspect, whereas the studies on learning (2 and 3) have dealt with the double-loop aspect. Secondly, different stakeholders have divergent needs concerning both the concept and the information produced. Finally, the word usefulness has to be defined. When is HRCA useful? For instance, is it when decisions are changed, when learning processes start, when action is taken or when habits are changed?
What do these studies tell us? In all of the, nearly 15, experimental decision making studies, the evidence indicates that decisions were changed by HRCA information.
Individual or organisational learning has been focused on in five studies, representing seven unique cases. Based on about 250 interviews with 96 financial, human resource, and line managers the following conclusions were drawn.
A difference between the category of line and human resource managers and the category of financial managers has been observed. The persuasion perspective dominates the former category, whereas the management control perspective dominates the latter category.
The attitude towards HRCA was positive in all seven cases. Most of the respondents reported that they had learnt something and that they had intentions to change their actions. Managers believed that HRCA has a goal to achieve. Compared with expectations, however, action in accordance with HRCA information or further action to implement HRCA methods appears to fade-out. Why does this occur? To answer this question, inhibiting forces to change habits and adopt HRCA were generated from the seven cases. Based on this evaluation the following model was developed.
TRAINING HRCA TARGETS
HRCA models Integrated with financial information
Knowledge Motivation Changed habits
Key-ratios Demand from superiors
Outcomes of investments
INFORMATION REWARD SYSTEMS
SYSTEMS
OPENNESS FOR CHANGE
Figure 4. A tentative model for a sustainable implementation of HRCA from a management control perspective.
It is obvious from the majority of cases that the discovery of hidden costs, incomes, and values serves as a strong incitement to implement HRCA in the organisation. Obviously, there is also a need for knowledge about these incitements. Managers must be aware of such questions as: How can the cost of absenteeism from work be calculated? What models can be used to estimate the financial impact of a training programme? What is the standard cost when recruiting a new employee? What is a normal outcome of an investment in a health promotion programme?
Thus there are different types of knowledge that have to be improved:
(1) Knowledge of models of how to calculate costs
(2) Knowledge of models of how to calculate costs and incomes
(3) Knowledge about human resource key-ratios in monetary or non-monetary terms
(4) Knowledge of the normal outcome of different human resource measures
Knowledge of how to do costings can successfully be increased by training, as has been shown in most of the above studies, whereas knowledge of key-ratios or outcomes must continuously be brought over by efficient information systems. Appropriate information systems that have to be adapted to HRCA include: financial accounting, payroll accounting, personnel administrative, and time records systems.
Changes in knowledge, however, is not enough to bring about a change in habits. Motivation must also be influenced. One inhibiting force, which was explicitly mentioned by respondents in some of the above cases, was an ambivalent support for HRCA from top management. Support from top management is clearly a key element of the reward system, but even other components of the reward system should be linked to the achievement of HRCA targets. To make this possible, HRCA targets must be established.
Openness for change in the corporate culture is a prerequisite if change is to occur. Being susceptible to change might be influenced by the establishment of new habits.
There are a host of examples of the application of HRCA and BSC. Unfortunately most of them are not available in English. The Swedish National Telecommunication Company (Telia) with both a human resource income statement and a human resource balance sheet, represents the HRCA school, whereas Skandia (an insurance company) represents the BSC school. Assi Domän Skog & Trä, a forest industry, falls somewhere between the two extremes.
I do not agree with the preliminary report from the OECD conference in Helsinki in March this year that there is a significant difference between the two concepts in the sense that HRCA is more cost oriented and BSC more added-value oriented.
The two schools of thought have much in common. They both aim at increasing the transparency of intangibles, although HRCA is limited to human capital. Both try to detect hidden costs, incomes, and values, although BSC prefers non-financial and HRCA financial indicators. However, neither HRCA nor BSC are totally consistent regarding this issue. In practise HRCA normally includes non-financial and BSC financial indicators.
HRCA is based on the implicit assumption that traditional accounting and costing procedures significantly influence habits in the organisation. In this respect, accounting rituals are powerful (perhaps the most powerful) and widely used instruments. The fact that accounting figures are normally discussed as the first point on the agenda at every management meeting, provides an extremely good opportunity to influence what is discussed in the organisation. This is not to imply that the content concerning human resources is sufficient. On the contrary, the content has to be improved. In contrast to BSC, using the old tools to show the new is a powerful instrument to change habits.
HRA can be applied in different ways, including the following:
(a) Information in the balance sheet and profit and loss account
(b) Outside the balance sheet but inside the profit and loss account
(c) Outside both the balance sheet and the profit and loss account but inside the annual report
(d) Outside the annual report
Of course, a combination of these alternatives is possible. For the BSC, only alternatives (c) and (d) are relevant. Concerning the controversial balance sheet issue, which is only one dimension of HRCA, there are advantages and disadvantages.
One disadvantage with a human resource balance sheet model is that only human capital is valuated. Other forms of intangible assets, such as market capital and structure capital, are not valuated, and prosecutors mean that the balance sheet is already an insufficient instrument to show the true value of a company. Why make things even more complicated by including human resources? Another argument is that a valuation based on historical costs is not a valid measurement of the value, whereas another opportunity, a valuation based on future earnings, concurs with present accounting conventions. A strong argument is that in spite of an almost 30-year-long debate of the issue, balance sheet valuation is not (except for football clubs) practised today.
Advocates of a balance sheet valuation mean that an inclusion of investments in human resources ensures a more correct value of the company. They also admit that balance sheet valuation is not practised today, but new phenomena, such as working time adjusted to the market conditions and competence accounts
To sum up:
(1) Balance sheet valuation is not a key issue in HRCA; it is merely one among several others.
(2) There are advantages and disadvantages with both HRCA and BSC. The best solution might be a combination of them.
(3) Different stakeholders have diverse needs concerning both the content of the information and the channel which is used to convey the information. Not much is really known about the impact of the two concepts on the behaviour of different stakeholders.
(4) There is a serious lack of evaluations of the profitability of investments in human resources.
From my point of view information needed to base decisions on must be improved. Such additional information would increase the transparency of the very important intangibles for different stakeholders. The need for information can be seen from different perspectives, as shown below.
PERSUASION SUPPORT
MANAGEMENT CONTROL
NEED USEFULNESS
CAPITAL MARKET
SOCIETY
Figure 5. Different perspectives on the use of HRCA information.
The capital market perspective embraces the interests of investors and creditors, while the interest of the company boards is represented through the management control perspective. The persuasion support perspective might be held by stakeholders internally (e.g., company doctors, local unions, human resource people or even line managers), or externally (e.g., unions, safety and health organisations of the firm). Finally the society perspective is represented by local or governmental authorities.
In the beginning of this presentation I described three different studies: one involved the difference between market and book value; the second included a comparison between the most and the least human capital-dependent companies with respect to differences in market and book value, and the third was a comparison between the most and the least human capital-dependent companies with respect to differences in rate of return. Can these (Swedish) findings be generalised to other OECD countries?
I suggest that a comparative study be conducted between some, or all, OECD countries. The study could preferably be broadened, taking also structure and market capital into account (e.g., what is the difference between market and book value in companies dependent or not dependent on structure capital)?
To increase the transparency of investments in intangibles, and thereby likely increase investments in strategically important intangibles, I propose the establishment of guidelines for the disclosure of information in intangibles.
The aim of these guidelines is to improve the information for different stakeholders. Before launching these guidelines, a thorough analysis must be carried out concerning what sort of information is requested from different stakeholders.
In connection with this, I suggest that information on intangibles is reported and collected in data bases. By doing so, possibilities to compare an individual enterprise with different lines of business, different geographical regions, etc. will be facilitated. The establishment of such data bases could be done as commercial projects
Regarding disclosure of information to increase the transparency of investments in intangibles, different stakeholders have diverse information needs. Both BSC and HRCA, with their respective shortages, aspire to supply models on how to solve this information gap. But both schools are poorly evaluated.
Before establishing guidelines on the disclosure of information on intangibles, I strongly recommend evaluative studies aimed at examining the usefulness of different methods. How do those methods affect the behaviour of different stakeholders? What is the effect on allocative investment decisions or other decisions inside or outside enterprises?
If the aim of improving the information on intangibles is to influence allocative investment decisions toward increased investments in intangibles, knowledge of the outcomes of such investments must be increased. This is especially true concerning human capital. Thus evaluations of the profitability of investments in intangibles have to be encouraged.
The aim of increasing investments in intangibles is, I suppose, to (I quote the title of this conference) "achieve better outcomes for enterprises, workers and society". I do not know whether "better outcomes" ever could be defined, but if I try, I could imagine that a better outcome for enterprises is to improve short- and long-term profitability. This could be operationally defined and measured as, e.g., added value per employee (short-term measurement) or investment in competence development per employee (long-term measurement).
For workers, "better outcome" might include the improvement of material, physical, and psychological well-being, operationally defined as, e.g., average wage per employee, average rate of sick leave per employee, accidents per employee and different attitude scores for the measurement of psychological well-being.
Finally, better outcomes for society, could involve, e.g., decreased unemployment and increased tax incomes, operationalised as net contribution per employee to the reduction in unemployment and paid taxes per employee, respectively.
Because people are the agents who run the enterprise, the human resource policy is of central importance. Thus human resource policies on an enterprise level that results in better outcomes for enterprises, workers, and societies ought to be rewarded in some way. Why not establish "The Human Resource Award"?
The contribution from the human resource policy to the well-being of the enterprise, the worker, and the society could be measured (by using a combination of BSC and HRCA), quantified and compared (by using data bases suggested in point 2 above) with other enterprises, and subsequently given points. The human resource policy with the highest points would be crowned as the best human resource enterprise in the OECD community.
PAGE 1
1.Prof. Willem J. Dercksen, KPMG Netherlands at The White Paper Thematic Conference on Objective 5, September 26 - 27, 1996.
2.Gröjer, JE. (1993), Redovisa anställda på balansräkningen! (Account for the worth of employees on the balance sheet), Labora Press, Stockholm.
3.Hansson, B (1996), Personnel Investments and Abnormal Return. Knowledge-based Firms and Human Resource Accounting. Work in progress. Personnel Economics Institute, School of Business, Stockholm University.
4.Lundberg, J. and Wiklund, C. (1994), Tillämpning av personalekonomi- en nulägesrapport (The use of HRCA), School of Business, Stockholm University.
5.TCO (1995), TCO ekonomernas höstrapport (The Autumn Report from the Economists of TCO), Stockholm.
6.The Swedish Association of Local Authorities. Kommunförbundet (1994). Personalekonomi i kommuner (The use of HRCA by Swedish Local Authorities). Stockholm.
7.Öhman, P. (1996), Kunskap i Årsredovisningen (Knowledge in the annual report). Luleå Graduate School 1996:05.
8.Johanson, U. (1996), Why human resource costing and accounting does not work. Work in progress. Personnel Economics Institute, School of Business, Stockholm University.
9.Danielsson, A. (1983), F?retagsekonomi - en översikt. (Business economy - an overview) Studentlitteratur, Stockholm.
10.Personnel Economics Institute, School of Business, Stockholm University.
11.E.g., Dagens Industri (1996), Stockholm. Many debate articles have been written by The Swedish Association of Graduates in Business Administration and Economics.
12.In the first year the interest was focused on human capital key ratios. The next step will be to go into the area of structure capital (The Swedish Key Ratio Institute, PA-forum, Stockholm). Similar institutes are also established in the U.S. and in Australia.
14.Kaplan, R. and Norton, D. (1992) The Balanced Scorecard - Measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review, Jan/Feb. Kaplan, R. and Norton, D. (1993) Putting the Balanced Scorecard to work. Harvard Business Review, Sept/Oct. Kaplan, R. and Norton, D. (1996) Using the Balanced Scorecard as a Strategic Management System. Harvard Business Review, Jan/Feb. An application of BSC is presented in; Ewing, P. and Lundahl, L. The Balanced Scorecards at ABB Sweden - the Evita project. Working paper. Stockholm School of Economics and Asea Brown Boveri AB, Sweden.
15.In this paper I am stressing the similarities although there are important differences. According to Sveiby, the main difference is the theory beneath the two concepts. "The Sveiby School" is based on the notion of peoples knowledge as the organisations only profit generator. The cash generated from peoples actions is a sign of that success, but not the originator of it. Human actions are converted into tangible and intangible ÓstructuresÓ, which enhance or decrease the possibilities for revenue streams. "The Sveiby School" has, to a great extent, influenced the disclosure of information on intangibles in Sweden.
16.Konrad (1988), Den osynliga balansräkningen. (The Invisible Balance sheet) Affärsvärlden, Stockholm.
17.Sveiby, K-E. (1996), The intangible assets monitor.Work in progress. Knowledge Management, Brisbane.
18.In 1964, Hermansson published his pioneer work concerning valuation of human assets. Brummet, Flamholtz and Pyle (Human Resource Measurement: a challenge for accountants. The Accounting Review, pp 217-224. April.) used the term “human resource accounting“ for the first time in 1968. In 1965, both Cronbach & Glaser (Psychological tests and personnel decicions, 2nd ed. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL.) and Naylor & Shine (A table for determining the increase in mean criterion score obtained by using a selection device. Journal of Industrial Psychology, 3, pp. 33-42.) presented models for estimating the financial utility of personnel selection, using the utility analysis concept.
19.Flamholtz, E. (1985), Human Resource Accounting. pp. 2-3. Jossey-Bass Publishers.
20.Harrel, A.M. and Klick, H.D. (1980), Comparing the impact of monetary and non-monetary human asset measures on executive decision making. Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol 5, No 4, pp. 393-400. Hendricks, J. (1976), The impact of human accounting information on stock investment decisions: An empirical study. Accounting Review, pp. 292-305. Gul, A. (1984), An empirical study of the usefulness of human resources turnover costs in Australian accounting firms. Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 9, No. 3/4, pp. 233-239. Ogan, P. (1988), Assessing the impact of human resource accounting information on managerial decisions : a field experiment. Personnel Review, pp. 29-35. March.
21.Boudreau, J.W. (1983), Effects of employee flows on utility analysis of human resource productivity improvement programs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 396-406. Boudreau, J.W. and Berger, C.I. (1985), Decision-theoretic utility analysis applied to employee separations and acquisitions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 581-612. Cascio, W.F. (1991), Costing Human Resources: The financial impact of behavior in organizations, 3rd ed. PWS-Kent, Boston. Cascio, W.F. and Ramos, R.A. (1986), Development and application of a new method for assessing job performance in behavioral/economic terms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 20-28. Hunter, J.E, and Schmidt, F.L. (1982), Fitting people to jobs: The impact of personnel selection on national productivity. In M.D. Dunnette and E.A. Fleischman (Eds.), Human capability assessment, 223-272, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. Mabon, H. (1996), The cost of downsizing in an enterprise with job security. Journal of Human Resource Costing and Accounting, No 1. Personnel Economics Institute, School of Business, Stockholm University.
22.Turner, G. (1996), Human Resource Accounting - Whim or Wisdom. Journal of Human Resource Costing and Accounting, Number 1. Personnel Economics Institute, School of Business, Stockholm University.
23.Scarpello, V. and Theeke, H. (1989), Human Resource Accounting: A Measured Critique. Journal of Accounting Literature, Vol. 8, pp. 265-280.
24.Roslender, R. and Dyson, J.R. (1992), Accounting for the worth of employees: A new look at an old problem. British Accounting Review 24, 311-329.
25.E.g. work done by Bishop, J. and others. Levine, D. (1996), Human Capital Investment. Work in progress. Expert meeting OECD, January 1996. Machin, S. and Wilkinson, D. (1995), Employee Training.Institute for Public Policy Research, No. 1. OECD (1996), Lifelong Learning for All. Paris. The Swedish Commission for the Promotion of Adult Education and Training (1996), Livslångt lärande i arbetslivet. (Lifelong Learning in Working Life.)SOU 1996:164
26.In the objectives for the Swedish Working Life Fund it is said that there is a connection between reduced absence rates due to sickness and increased profitability. Projects with grants from the Fund have been evaluated by Johanson, U. (1996), The profitability of investments in intangible assets: A measurement of perceptions. Working paper. Personnel Economics Institute, School of Business, Stockholm University.
27.Pelletier, K. A. (1993), Review and Ana1ysis of the Health and Cost-Effective Outcome Studies of Comprehensive Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Programmes at the Worksite. American Journal of Health Promotion, Vol. 8, No. 1.
28.Argyris, C. and Schön, D. (1978),Organizational Learning. A Theory of Action Perspective. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley.
29.A summary of some of these studies appears in Johanson, U. and Nilson, M. (1992), Personalekonomiska beräkningars användbarhet. (The usefulness of Human Resource Costing and Accounting) Personnel Economics Institute 1992:2, School of Business, Stockholm University.
30.The comparison and conclusion presented here are from Johanson, U. (1996), Why the concept of human resource costing and accounting does not work. Work in progress. Personnel Economics Institute, School of Business, Stockholm University. The most extensive study is Johanson, U. and Nilson, M. (1996), Human Resource Accounting and Organisational Learning. Work in progress. Personnel Economics Institute, School of Business, Stockholm University.
32.Drake, K. (1996), Human Resource Accountancy in Enterprises: Recent Practises and New Developments. Preliminary report from the OECD conference in Helsinki, March 1996.
Mail an tse - 
Startseite