Accounting for Intangible Assets in International Manufacturing
This paper examines the challenges of accounting for intangible assets in transnational manufacturing operations, with particular focus on companies operating across the United States, Mexico, France, and Turkey. Drawing on the Kaplan and Norton balanced scorecard framework, the paper categorizes intangible assets into human capital, information capital, and organizational capital, and analyzes how globalization and cultural differences complicate their valuation and management. The analysis considers how cultural factors—including differing attitudes toward work, hierarchy, and knowledge transfer—affect the strategic value of intangible assets in each national context, and identifies best practices for multinational enterprises seeking to align subsidiary strategy with these intangible dimensions.
- Introduction: Globalization, international expansion, and accounting challenges
- Understanding Intangible Assets: Defining human, information, and organizational capital
- Globalization and Its Cultural Dimensions: How globalization reshapes markets and cultural norms
- International Implications for Intangible Assets: Valuation challenges and balanced scorecard framework
- Applying Best Practices Across Markets: U.S., Mexico, France, and Turkey comparative analysis
- Conclusion: Summary of key cross-cultural intangible asset findings
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- It grounds abstract concepts—human, information, and organizational capital—in a concrete, four-country comparative framework, giving the analysis practical relevance.
- It integrates well-chosen academic sources (Kaplan & Norton, Chung et al., Minbaeva et al.) alongside cultural frameworks (Hofstede) to support each analytical claim.
- The progression from definition to global context to country-specific application follows a logical structure that builds understanding incrementally.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates effective use of a theoretical framework—the Kaplan and Norton balanced scorecard—as an organizing lens. By introducing the framework early and then applying its three categories systematically to the international context, the writer shows how a single model can structure a multi-faceted comparative analysis. This technique is characteristic of business and management writing at the undergraduate level.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a broad introduction to globalization and its relevance to international accounting. It then defines intangible assets, explores globalization's cultural dimensions, and connects both to challenges in asset valuation. A final applied section maps those challenges onto four specific national markets. The works cited list reflects a blend of peer-reviewed journal articles, institutional publications, and practitioner sources appropriate for the topic.
Introduction
The international business world has worked to break down barriers that formerly existed, allowing businesses to more easily expand their operations into new markets. Much of this trend has been fueled by globalization, which has allowed for the increasing connectedness of markets and resources through technological developments in many areas—including, but not limited to, information and communications technology, advances in shipping, and a political environment largely accepting of deregulation. However, as companies have acted to expand into new opportunities in foreign markets, many have found that there is a plethora of different challenges presented by cultural and social factors, among others, that are present in those markets.
The main functions of business include operations, marketing, and accounting, and there are many aspects of these functions that must be adjusted to effectively carry out international expansions. This analysis focuses on the challenges that are present in accounting for intangible assets in international networks spanning countries such as the United States, Mexico, France, and Turkey, and considers what factors businesses must focus on to operate successfully in these markets.
Understanding Intangible Assets
In order to explore how intangible assets affect international business operations, it is first necessary to expand upon the concept of intangible assets and develop a working definition. An intangible asset is something that is not a physical asset. For example, a factory and all the equipment needed to produce finished goods are physical—you can actually touch them—which makes accounting for them relatively straightforward even in international locales. By contrast, an intangible asset is more abstract in nature and does not have any physical form that can be easily valued. Examples include items such as human capital, information capital, and organizational capital.
Although these intangible assets may be more abstract in nature, they can in some cases represent an organization's most valuable assets in relation to its strategy. For example, a company with a strong brand image may rely on that image to attract consumers and give its product or service a selection advantage in the market, which in turn can represent the company's strategic advantage. Similar analogies can also be drawn to a company's human capital—the quality of its workforce—as well as its ability to add value through some transformative process in the organization, or organizational capital. It is often the case that such factors can represent the success or failure of any organization. For example, while a number of entrepreneurs might be able to acquire the physical capital needed to launch a new product or service, they might not have the ability to promote their brand in the market or the human or process expertise to design a sufficiently valuable product relative to the competition. Therefore, considering the influence of intangible assets in any strategic decision often represents the difference between success and failure.
Works Cited
Cagliano, A., Marco, A., & Rafele, C. (2013). The impact of near sourcing on global dynamic supply chains: A case study. Dynamics in Logistics, 489–498.
Chung, C., Park, H., Lee, J., & Kim, K. (2015). Human capital in multinational enterprises: Does strategic alignment matter? Journal of International Business Studies, 806–829.
Hofstede Center. (n.d.). France. Retrieved from https://geert-hofstede.com/france.html
Jensen, M., & Barfield, C. (2012). Global value chains and the continuing case for free trade. American Enterprise Institute, 1(1), 1–15.
Kaplan, R., & Norton, D. (2004, February 1). Measuring the strategic readiness of intangible assets. Harvard Business Review.
Lev, B., Radhakrishnan, S., & Evans, P. (2016, February 24). Organizational capital: A CEO's guide to measuring and managing enterprise intangibles. The Center for Global Enterprise.
Liew, A. (2007, June 2). Understanding data, information, knowledge and their inter-relationships. Journal of Knowledge Management Practice.
McCrackin, G. (1986). Culture and consumption: A theoretical account of the structure and movement of the cultural meaning of consumer goods. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(1), 71–86.
Minbaeva, D., Pedersen, T., Bjorkman, I., Fey, C., & Park, H. (2003). MNC knowledge transfer, subsidiary absorptive capacity, and HRM. Journal of International Business Studies, 34(6), 581–599.
The Economist. (2012, December 22). Boom on the Bosphorus. The Economist.
Weinreb, E. (2012, March 29). France vs. U.S.: Which work culture is more sustainable? Green Biz.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.