[雙語翻譯]無形資產(chǎn)外文翻譯--無形資產(chǎn)——公司成功的新維度

1、2800 英文單詞， 英文單詞，14500 英文字符，中文 英文字符，中文 4700 字文獻出處： 文獻出處：Niculita A L, Popa A F, Caloian F. The intangible assets–a new dimension in the company's success[J]. Procedia Economics and Finance, 2012, 3: 304-308.The Intang

2、ible Assets - A New Dimension in The Company’s SuccessAda Lorena Niculita, Adriana Florina Popa, Florentin CaloianAbstractThis paper is based on the assumption that there is a strong influence between the intangible asse

3、ts 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 si

4、gnificant difference between the market value and the net book value of the intangible assets. In the best case scenario, the intangibles like the human skills or the customers9 value are usually improperly recognized or

5、 accounted for. We talk about further implication when the auditors certify that the balance sheet shows the fair view of the financial position of business in spite of the fact that it is not showing all the values invo

6、lved. There have been only few researches in this field have and there is no model available, which could be considered to be free from major limitations. The major limitation of the existing models is that there is a cl

7、ear difficulty to correctly identify all types of intangible assets and their influence inside a business. These are the facts that underlie our decision to start a research in this domain. Our study aims to propose a re

8、alistic practice for the valuation and accounting of intangibles the know-how or the customer’s value, staring from the analysis of the previous efforts done in this field by other researchers.Key words: intangible asset

9、s; valuation; know-how; performance; fair view1. IntroductionEven to the casual observers of Knowledge Management KM trends the links that exist between KM and the equally active field of Intellectual Capital IC are fair

10、ly obvious. We start by addressing the fact that professionals are yet to develop the appropriate means to measure and report intellectual capital in terms of intangibles that can add considerable value to business organ

11、izations in the knowledge economy experienced today. Like KM itself, the related field of IC is in a state of early development in which competing theories abound on what intellectual capital is, how to measure it and ho

12、w to report it, divisions among them being enormous.It should be useful to point out that the problems and questions posed by IC theoreticians and practitioners are almost always framed in terms of accounting. In other w

13、ords, the IC problem is universally seen as an accounting problem, a narrow problem of computing a certain type of intangible value.Beginning approximately in 1980, something strange started to happen in the New York Sto

14、ck Exchange: the value of stocks started to exceed the book values of its member companies by unprecedented margins. By 1990, the value of the Dow Jones Industrial Average was actually double the book values of its 30 co

15、nstituent companies; by late 1990s, the intangibles-to-book ration had risen to 3:1 - all this despite the fact that the sources of these values were utterly unaccounted for on the balance sheet. This made - and still ma

16、kes - the IC problem.As a result of the way in which the IC problem was articulated the quest for solutions was launched by accountants, for accountants and within accounting. Nevertheless, the manner in which the proble

17、m had been described, as well as the identification of the situational context that leading academic circles. This in itself becomes an issue as the knowledge life cycle is nothing but a form of social capital. It is soc

18、ial 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 add value financial and otherwise to the lives of people invo

19、lved and the enterprises f which they are part of. Clearly, the quality and performance of knowledge processing has financial valuation implications in a company. Therefore, this particular kind of intangible asset is a

20、social capital of an innovation sort. The capacity to innovate - sustainably and with regularity and reliability - should be treated as deserving of value itself. Thus, no comprehensive attempt to reflect the categorizat

21、ion 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 thing more valuable than valuable organizational knowledge may be

22、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 measurement, processes can add value as well. Further, the capacity to

23、 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 patents or technologies. The value of most innovations is ephemeral and so l

24、earning must be a continuous source of new knowledge and innovation responding to the epistemic problems that almost always rise from existing knowledge. In this case we should consider adding social capital in its vario

25、us forms to either side of the balance sheet. A firm^ capacity to innovate could be so poorly configurated that it actually detracts from the value of a firm by dampening its capacity to learn and therefore adapt. A firi

26、ngs social innovation capital could be in some cases not seen as an asset at all, but as a liability. Clearly, the knowledge life cycle is a major source of competitive advantage in a company，assuming it’s strong and res

27、ponsive. In such cases it should be counted for as an asset.3. Biased linearityAmong the first principles of the new KM is the view of organizations as complex adaptive systems. Outcomes are the nonlinear, emergent resul

28、ts 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 work either independently or agai

29、nst 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 accounting. Balance sheets and inco

30、me 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 explained in retrospect, as they are not

31、predictable in practice. In this case, value is not reducible to its simple components.The inability to predict nonlinear, dynamical outcomes has another practical implication on related accounting theories and approache

32、s: there are no certain formulas or principles available on how best to create intellectual capital. Organizations can’t control the production of IC in any simple cause-and-effect sense at all, so how can accountants pu

33、rport to do so in ways that are as predictable and standardized as, say, the manner in which they manage fixed assets and reflect their values on a balance sheet? If, for example, an employee generated solution to organi

34、zational processes lowers the costs and raises the revenues, the income statement reflects these effects and an eventual patent shows up on the balance sheet. Meanwhile the market notices these changes and the company’s