Reality present,researchers

absent?

495

Accounting Auditing &Accountability Journal,

Vol. 11 No. 4, 1998, pp. 495-505.# MCB University Press, 0951-3574

Received January 1997Revised July 1997

Accepted September1997

COMMENTARY

Current development inhuman resource costing and

accountingReality present, researchers absent?

Jan-Erik GroÈjer and Ulf JohansonPersonnel Economics Institute, School of Business,

Stockholm University, Sweden

Human resource costing and accounting ± from the 1960s to the1990sA widely shared opinion is that the most fruitful research period of HumanResource Costing and Accounting (HRCA)[1] was from the late 1960s untilthe end of the 1970s. This was a period of basic research that sought todevelop and assess the validity of models for the measurement of humanresource costs and values (Flamholtz, 1985). The topic was first brought upon the research agenda in the beginning of the 1960s. The disciplines witha strong influence on these models were Sociology, Industrial Psychologyand Economics. In 1964, Hermansson (1964) published his pioneer workconcerning valuation of human assets and Brummet et al. (1968) used theterm ``human resource accounting'' (HRA) for the first time in 1968. Usingthe utility analysis concept, Cronbach and Glaser (1965) and Naylor andShine (1965) presented models for estimating the financial utility ofpersonnel selection.

HRA advanced rapidly to the upper reaches of the research agenda, butat the end of the 1970s the interest in HRCA declined with respect to bothacademia and the corporate world. This fact does not necessarily implythat the quality of HRCA research deteriorated, but the interest in thesubject simply decreased.

In the 1980s, an intensive development took place within utility analysis.Schmidt et al. (1979) made a significant contribution in 1979, followed by aseries of articles that focused largely on personnel selection problems (e.g.Boudreau, 1983; Boudreau and Berger, 1985; Cascio and Ramos, 1986;Hunter and Schmidt, 1982; and later by, e.g., Cascio, 1991; Mabon, 1996;Martin and Raju, 1992).

During this period, numerous experiments dealing with the influence ofHRCA information on decision making were carried out (e.g., Gul, 1984;Harrell and Klick, 1980; Hendricks, 1976; Ogan, 1988; Oliver and Flamholtz,1978). In all these studies, decisions were influenced in some way by HRCA

AAAJ11,4

496

information. In an early study by Rhode and Lawler (1973) that focused onthe usefulness of HRCA, it was found that managers opposed HRCAbecause it was perceived to limit their freedom of action. This result can becompared with the findings of Latham and Whyte (1994), who reportedthat utility analysis reduced the support of managers for implementing avalid selection procedure. Nevertheless, Highhouse and Macan (1994) foundin a survey of industrial/organizational psychologists that, 46 per cent ofthe respondents who had presented an HR activity to management reportedusing utility estimates. In contrast, Maher (1996) found that few hotelcompanies in the UK undertook any systematic analysis of their humanresource investments.

The less fruitful research period began in the late 1970s. According toFlamholtz (1985, pp. 2-3), a widespread erroneous belief spread suggestingthat HRA was concerned only with treating people as financial objects,``although preparing financial statements that included human resourceswas undoubtedly a part of HRA, it was not by far the most significant part.Yet precisely because it was dramatic and innovative, `putting people onthe balance sheet' became the dominant image of HRA for many people''.The debate was largely focused on the appropriateness of valuing humanresources on the balance sheet. To some extent, this debate remains.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, other arguments regarding the failureof HRCA have been put forth. Thus, Scarpello and Theeke (1989) intimatethat HRCA is an interesting concept, but find it hard to understand whythere has not been a serious effort to develop valid and reliable measures.Roslender and Dyson (1992) have argued that HRCA has failed to developfurther in the way of practical applications.

It is possible to challenge the conclusion that HRCA has failed from aresearch ``raison d'eà tre'' perspective. However, such arguments wouldserve only to distract the reader's attention from the subject at hand. In thenext section, we will instead challenge the negative conclusion from a``Swedish'' HRCA perspective. Because we ourselves have been deeplyinvolved in the last ten years of Swedish HRCA research and practicalapplications, our interpretation of the Swedish perspective is not free ofbias.

The overriding factor that led to this article is that the Organization forEconomic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the EuropeanCommission (EC) and the Swedish government have all separately andrecently put ``intangibles'' and HRCA on their agendas (see Section Three).Our ambition is to try to formulate what we regard as the main conclusionsfrom the Swedish HRCA scene that would seem to have importantconsequences for future international HRCA research.

The HRCA development in SwedenIn Sweden, the demand for better information about human resources hasbeen obvious during the 1990s. This interest has been shown from many

Reality present,researchers

absent?

497

different parties (e.g., human resource departments, financial departments,company doctors, unions and, more recently from top management,investors and politicians). In describing the development in Sweden, wewill use two different perspectives, namely management control andcapital market.

The management control perspective evolved very explicitly in the mid-1980s, whereas the interest from actors on the capital market has beenadded in the last couple of years.

The management control perspectiveIn 1991, the Swedish government proposed a legal obligation fororganizations with more than 100 employees to provide an account ofpersonnel costs (e.g., personnel turnover, sickness leave, training andworking environment) in their annual report. The proposal was based on amanagement control perspective in the sense that the idea was to stimulateworking environment investments. Most of the bodies to which theproposed legislation was submitted for consideration were positive to theidea of having better information of personnel costs, but they were notfavourably disposed to legislation. Although the proposal was withdrawn,a host of organizations made their own human resource income statements.

Thus, Lundberg and Wiklund (1994) found that 70 per cent of theresponding personnel managers in Swedish companies with more than 200employees claimed that they were applying HRCA to some extent. Most ofthe organizations had started to do so in the beginning of the 1990s. Themost frequent use of HRCA was, however, a reconsideration of humanresources rather than using a specific model. Roughly, 20 per cent of locallabour union organizations maintained that they used HRCA in theirdecision-making process (TCO, 1995). In an investigation conducted by theSwedish Association of Local Authorities (1994), it was found that 22percent of the responding 276 Swedish local authorities had decided to usean accounting approach to HRCA. Only 5-15 per cent of personnel,accounting and financial managers declared their lack of interest in HRCA.Absence of resources was seen as the main obstacle for applying HRCA.Finally, OÈ hman (1996) found that 43 Swedish companies used a modelbased on the balance scorecard concept in their 1994 annual report. Ourconclusion is that HRCA, based on a management control perspective,seems to be used to a substantial degree by many Swedish organizations.

How can we explain the relative frequent use in Sweden (and to someextent in the other Scandinavian countries) when HRCA is regarded as anoutmoded topic in other parts of the world? The basic managementquestions and problems ought to be similar all over the postmodern world.

We will discuss some possible forces underlying and start with a simpleproposition:

(1) The marketing of the HRCA concept by academicians andconsultants has been successful in Sweden.

AAAJ11,4

498

A more elaborate answer can be traced to the enterprise level. Johansonand Nilson (1996a) found the following stimulating and inhibiting forcesconcerning the use of HRCA costing as a decision tool for the treatment ofemployee alcohol problems (as outlined in Table I).

Here we will not enter a more detailed description of the separate factors.What is important, however, is to stress that they found more factorsacting against, than in favour of, HRCA. This implies the following:

(2) There has been a strong force to overcome the factors acting againstthe use of HRCA on the micro level.

This directs us to a third possible explanation of the Swedish exception, anexplanation that guides us away from the above rationalistic conceptstoward concepts such as reward systems, organizational structure, powerin organizations, etc. According to our knowledge, the personnel director ofa company has become a full member (in all aspects) of its board ofdirectors earlier or to a much greater extent in Scandinavia than in the restof Europe. HRCA, as a management tool, can be used to visualise orlegitimise that position:

(3) HRCA has been used to legitimise the position of human resourcedirectors as members of the executive board.

A fourth explanation might be that HRCA has not been associated with``putting people on the balance sheet.'' Flamholtz (1985, p. 8) formulates themessage of HRA in the following way: ``HRA represents both a paradigm, away of looking at human resource decisions and issues, and a set ofmeasures for quantifying the effects of human resource managementstrategies upon the cost and value of people as organizational resources.''The perception of the HRCA concept seems, however, to differ. The balancesheet issue has not been in the foreground in Sweden. As shown byJohanson and Nilson (1996a; 1996b), HRCA is mostly associated with a

Table I.Stimulating andinhibiting forcesconcerning the use ofHRCA costing as adecision tool

Stimulating forces Inhibiting forces

1. Visualise alternatives andstructure the problem

1a. Lack of HRCA knowledge1b. Contingency models lacking1c. Means more control and threatens

integrity2. Language and argument 2a. Central organisation and personnel policy

develops2b. Reduced scope of action2c. Lack of commitment

3. More measures and bettermanagement

3a. Central organisation and personnelpolicy

3b. Reduced scope of action3c. Lack of HRCA knowledge

Reality present,researchers

absent?

499

change in thinking, and the accounting as well as the costing aspect of theconcept are seen in their entirety. In spite of substantial individual learningamong managers, the organizational adaptation of HRCA was, however,much more complicated as was realised by Johanson and Nilson (1996b). Inthe Lundberg and Wiklund (1994) study, the most frequent use of HRCAwas a change in thinking about the management of human resources,which was followed by costing and accounting:

(4) HRCA has mostly been associated with a ``changed way of thinking''and the accounting and costing aspect of the concept have beenlooked upon in their entirety.

A final explanation can be found at the societal level. HRCA might havebeen used as a change instrument on the fairly regulated Swedish labourmarket as an administrative reform (Brunsson and Olsen, 1990) tostimulate organizational change (Ezzamel et al., 1995). This can also helpto explain why HRCA has primarily been used in public organizationswhere the need of change is supposedly greater compared with privateorganizations:

(5) HRCA might have been used as a change instrument on theregulated Swedish labour market.

One perspective that is remarkably foreseen in HRCA literature is ethical innature. For ethical reasons many argue against the use of HRCA; however,there are equally many who argue in favour of HRCA for the same reasons(HaÈ llsten, 1997). The two approaches can probably never be united.Admittedly, HRCA can be applied for different purposes just as a bread-knife:

(6) What we do not know is whether consistently applying HRCA willlead to value displacements within the organization. What is theintention of using HRCA and how is it actually used?

Further development of HRCA requires greater knowledge of the ethicalaspect. A second general conclusion is that in Sweden the stimulatingforces seem mainly related to organizational improvement and social order(to change it), whereas the inhibiting forces seem related to organizationalorder (to retain it).

The capital market perspectiveThe increasing importance of human resources (and the correspondingfailure to account for human resources is illustrated by Figures 1 and 2(Johanson, 1996). In Figure 1, the difference between market and bookvalue among companies on the Stockholm Stock Exchange during the lastten years is shown.

AAAJ11,4

500

A significant difference is revealed if the companies are ranked accordingto dependency on human resources[2] and the highest decile (knowledge-based firms) is compared with the lowest decile (capital-intensive firms).

This means that investments in human resources represent asignificantly higher value to the capital market today compared with tenyears ago. This is, however, not normally reflected in the bookkeepingfigures or any other quantitative data disclosed by enterprises.

Another indication of the accounting problem (or its failure) is thataccounted goodwill for companies listed on the Stockholm Stock Exchangegrew between 1975-92 from less than 1 BSEK to 37 BSEK, or from less than

1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994

900 000

800 000

700 000

600 000

500 000

400 000

300 000

200 000

100 000

0

MSEK Book to Market Value SSE

Market Value (Equity)Book Value (Equity)

Figure 1.The difference betweenmarket and book valueamong Swedishcompanies on theSwedish stockexchange from 1985 to1994

1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994

50 000

45 000

40 000

35 000

30 000

25 000

20 000

15 000

10 000

5 000

0

MSEKDifferences; Book and Market V alue

Key

Upper Decile (Knowledge-based firms)

Lower Decile (Capital-based firms)

Figure 2.Comparison betweenthe most and the leasthuman capitaldependent companieson the Swedish stockexchange from 1985 to1994 in relation to thedifference in marketand book value

Reality present,researchers

absent?

501

1 per cent of the total stock exchange value to more than 7 per cent (GroÈjer,1993). The proposal of the International Accounting Standards Committee(1995) for intangible assets seems only to scratch the surface without reallysolving the goodwill problem.

Even if a change in accounting procedures and figures should not affectinvestor decisions (share prices), new information changing judged riskand future cash flow ought to do it (according to the efficient markethypotheses).

Hansson (1997) has compared share prices of knowledge intensivecompanies with companies less dependent on human capital on theStockholm Stock Exchange (dividing the selected companies into threeportfolios).

Hansson (1997, p. 1) states that ``The results show that an increasingdependence on human resources is followed by a rise in abnormal return.The results indicate that investors are not able to distinguish personnelinvestments form expenses, leading to an underestimation of earnings andreturn. The findings suggest that investors need accounting information onhuman resources to help improve investment decisions.'' The study can becriticised for using data for a too short period and with a small tradingvolume. The results indicate, however, that it is wise to formulate ahypothesis as HRCA information can affect share prices.

The capital market perspective leads us to the following question: Theneed for human resource information from a capital market perspective isobvious, but what are the forces hindering the disclosure of suchinformation?

HRCA on the political/institutional agendaThere seems to be a fast growing interest in ``intangibles'' and HRCA bypoliticians and administrators in intermediate organizations. For anextended period, OECD has investigated the theoretical possibility andpractical feasibility of treating investment in human and finance capitalsimilarly. In a recently published book (OECD, 1996), it was noted thatimprovements in the information and decision-making systems that shapehuman capital acquisition and utilisation is a key factor in helping anation's firms to compete. This leads to the conclusion that human capitalmeasurement and accounting for human resources have to be improved.An important issue in the discussion initiated by the OECD has been thetreatment of investments in human capital on the balance sheet. The OECDwill probably propose a thorough investigation to develop guidelines forvoluntary disclosure of human resource information, and therebyexcluding the balance sheet issue. This view is based on the resistanceto a balance sheet valuation from different stakeholders and the fact that it,despite its 25 years in academic circles, has hardly been in practical use(except for its use in a few companies and professional sport clubs).

AAAJ11,4

502

The topic of HRA was also introduced by the EC at the end of 1995 in a``White Paper'' on education and learning. The intention of the EC is toprepare guidelines for action to promote teaching and learning in themember countries. One of five general objectives of this work is to ``treatcapital investment and investment in training on an equal basis''(European Commission 1995, p. 52).

Thus, the OECD and the EC have intentions to prepare guidelines for thedisclosure of HRA information. Some decisions that have to be taken arewhether such information should be mandatory or not, monetary or not,inside or outside the annual report and, if inside, inside or outside thefinancial statement. The impact of these different alternatives on investors'or managers' behaviour has been investigated to only a limited extent.

Another indication is that The Dutch Ministry of Social Affairs togetherwith the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and WorkingConditions in May 1997 arranged a conference on costs and benefits ofoccupational safety and health. Finally, the Swedish government are goingto discuss intangibles and HRCA as two of about 30 issues under theumbrella heading ``Working Life 2000'' at an EC congress in Sweden inMay 2000. The 30 workshops are to be held in Brussels during 1998-99.The invited researchers will be asked to write a normative statement ineach area as an input to the EC congress.

More events could be reported, but it seems sufficient to conclude thatthere seems to be a fast growing political and institutional interest ordemand for knowledge and action in the area of HRCA and intangibles.

Two main conclusions with respect to future researchIn Sweden, there has been a strong and even increasing interest in HRCA inboth research and education. It has been steadily growing during the lastten years; for instance all new students (nearly 1,000/year) at the School ofBusiness at Stockholm University study HRCA. Since the end of the 1980s,a special research institute (Personnel Economics Institute), with nearly 20researchers, has been performing studies in the area. The Institute alsorecently launched the Journal of Human Resource Costing and Accounting.

Currently, there are many indications that Sweden will not remain as anexception. Apart from the recent interest from the OECD and the EC, theincreasing number of concepts (e.g., HRCA, balanced score-card,intellectual capital) aspiring to make a contribution to improve thetransparency of human resources and other intangibles indicates a worldwide shift in interest. Many actors that have not been on stage earlier haverecently emerged, including politicians (as in the EC case), accountingfirms (Ernst & Young is supporting the OECD initiatives) and individualenterprises (e.g., Skandia).

But where are the researchers? The number of published articles dealingwith HRCA issues seems to have been reduced in the 1990s compared withthe 1970s and 1980s.

Reality present,researchers

absent?

503

The problem of HRCA research seems rather to be a failure to recruitnew researchers in the 1990s than a lack of research problems.

Is the shortage of researchers due to difficulties in financing HRCAresearch, difficulties publishing research results or just a rumour that thearea is academically ``dead''? (On the other hand, there were as many as 65researchers participating in the special symposium about ``Accounting andHuman Resources'' at the annual meeting of the European AccountingAssociation in Graz, 1997.) The forces underlying the rise and fall ofresearch topics in accounting are still to be investigated.

Currently, HRCA is a complex and poorly understood process ofaccounting. The behavioural impact of HRCA, the many diverging forcesinside organizations, the increasing need of information from the capitalmarket and pressure and action from supranational organizations such asthe OECD are a part of this change process:

There are several stimulating and inhibiting forces underlying the use and ``non use'' ofHRCA in practice. We currently know little about why and how accounting proceduresand expressions change.

Many of the technical problems associated with HRCA that have had ahistorical origin are still unresolved. Those problems can be investigatedunder the heading of e.g., HRCA, balanced scorecard or critical accounting.We have no interest in concept monopolisation, though we have an interestin the problems in which HRCA is one expression. One problem with abureaucratisation of HRCA (e.g., through legislation) is that a subject areacan easily be turned from a profit or efficiency making tool to a costconsuming procedure. If this was to happen, regulation can do more harmthan good.

There are too many forces at play to yield any forecast other than one ofchaos. The only comment we would like to espouse concerning the future ofHRCA is that it seems probable that there will be a HRCA reality open forresearch. But where are the researchers?

Notes

1. The concept of HRCA comprises both human resource accounting and costing humanresources. The concept, therefore, includes utility analysis, which is often defined asthe financial utility of human resource measures.

2. The ranking has been obtained by using the following selection ratio (Hansson, 1997):Selection ratio = Ai/(Ni/Wi) where Ai is the average wage; Ni is the proportion of non-wage costs; and Wi is the proportion of wage costs for firm i.The proportion of non-wage costs divided with the proportion of wage costs shows thehuman resource intensity of the company while the average wage reflects the value ofthe production from the human resources to the company.

References and further reading

Boudreau, J.W. (1983), ``Effects of employee flows on utility analysis of human resourceproductivity improvement programs'', Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, pp. 396-406.

AAAJ11,4

504

Boudreau, J.W. and Berger, C.I. (1985), ``Decision-theoretic utility analysis applied toemployee separations and acquisitions'', Journal of Applied Psychology, No. 70,pp. 581-612.

Brummet, R. L. et al. (1968), ``Human Resource Measurement: a challenge for accountants'',The Accounting Review, April, pp. 217-24.

Brunsson, N. and Olsen, J. (1990), Makten att reformera (The power to reform), Carlssons,Stockholm.

Cascio, W.F. (1991), Costing Human Resources: The Financial Impact of Behavior inOrganizations, 3rd ed., PWS-Kent, Boston.

Cascio, W.F. and Ramos, R.A. (1986), ``Development and application of a new method forassessing job performance in behavioral/economic terms'', Journal of AppliedPsychology, No. 71, pp. 20-28.

Cronbach, L.J. and Glaser, G.C. (1965), Psychological Tests and Personnel Decisions, 2nd ed.,University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL.

European Commission (1995), Teaching and Learning. Towards the Learning Society, Officefor Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.

Ewing, P. (1995), The Balanced Scorecard at ABB Sweden, Stockholm School of Economics,EFI No. 6554.

Ezzamel, M. et al., (1995), Changing Managers and Managing Change, The CharteredInstitute of Management Accountants, London.

Flamholtz, E. (1985), Human Resource Accounting, Jossey-Bass Publishers, Los Angeles,CA.

GroÈjer, J-E. (1993), Redovisa anstaÈ llda paÊ balansraÈ kningen! (Account for the worth ofemployees on the balance sheet), Labora Press, Stockholm.

Gul, A. (1984), ``An empirical study of the usefulness of human resources turnover costs inAustralian accounting firms'', Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 9 No. 3/4,pp. 233-39.

HaÈ llsten, F. (1997), Personalekonomi och det goda (Human resource costing and accountingand the good workplace), BAS, School of Business, Gothenburg University.

Hansson, B. (1997), Personnel Investments and Abnormal Return On, unpublished paper,School of Business, Stockholm University.

Harrel, A.M. and Klick, H.D. (1980), ``Comparing the impact of monetary and non-monetaryhuman asset measures on executive decision making'', Accounting, Organizations andSociety, Vol. 5 No 4, pp. 393-400.

Hendricks, J. (1976), ``The impact of human accounting information on stock investmentdecisions: an empirical study'', Accounting Review, pp. 292-305.

Hermansson, R. (1964), Accounting for Human Assets, Occasional paper No. 14, MichiganState University.

Highhouse, S. and Macan, T. (1994), ``Communicating the utility of human resourcesactivities: a survey of I/O and HR professionals'', Journal of Business and Psychology,Vol. 8 No. 4, Summer.

Hopwood, A.G. (1987), ``The archaeology of accounting systems'', Accounting,Organisations and Society, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 207-34.

Hunter, J.E. and Schmidt, F.L. (1982), ``Fitting people to jobs: the impact of personnelselection on national productivity'', in Dunnette, M.D. and Fleischman, E.A. (Eds),Human Capability Assessment, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey, pp. 223-72.

International Accounting Standards Committee (1995), Intangible Assets, Exposure draft E50, Rochester.

Reality present,researchers

absent?

505

Johanson, U. (1996), Increasing the Transparency of Investments in Intangibles, unpublishedspeech notes for workshop 6 at the OECD conference in Ottawa, December.

Johanson, U. and Nilson, M. (1996a), ``The usefulness of human resource costing andaccounting'', Journal of Human Resource Costing and Accounting, Vol. 1 No. 1,pp 117-38.

Johanson, U. and Nilson, M. (1996b), Human Resource Costing and Accounting andOrganisational Learning, Working paper, Personnel Economics Institute, School ofBusiness, Stockholm University.

Latham, G. and Whyte, G. (1994), ``The futility of utility analysis'', Personnel Psychology,Vol. 47, pp. 31-46.

Lundberg, J. and Wiklund, C. (1994), TillaÈ mpning av personalekonomi- en nulaÈ gesrapport(The Use of HRCA), School of Business, Stockholm University.

Mabon, H. (1996), ``The cost of downsizing in an enterprise with job security'', Journal ofHuman Resource Costing and Accounting, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 35-62.

Maher, A. (1996), ``Measuring human resource value: an analysis based on the hotelindustry'', Journal of Human Resource Costing and Accounting, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp 15-33.

Martin, S.L. and Raju, N.S. (1992), ``Determining cutoff scores that optimize utility: arecognition of recruiting costs'', Journal of Applied Psychology, No. 77, pp. 15-23.

Mirvis, P.H. and Lawler, E.E. (1983), ``Systems are not solutions: issues in creatinginformation systems that account for the human organization'', Accounting,Organizations and Society, No. 8, pp. 175-90.

Naylor, J.C. and Shine, L.C. (1965), ``A table for determining the increase in mean criterionscore obtained by using a selection device'', Journal of Industrial Psychology, No. 3,pp. 33-42.

OECD (1996), Measuring What People Know. Human Capital Accounting for the KnowledgeEconomy, OECD Publications, Paris.

Ogan, P. (1988), ``Assessing the impact of human resource accounting information onmanagerial decisions: a field experiment'', Personnel Review, March, pp. 29-35,

OÈ hman, P. (1996), Kunskap i aÊ rsredovisningen (Knowledge in the Annual Report), LuleaÊGraduate School, p. 5.

Oliver, J. and Flamholtz, E. (1978), ``Human resource replacement cost numbers, cognitiveinformation processing and personnel decisions. A laboratory experiment'', Journalof Business Finance and Accounting, Vol. 5 No. 2, Summer, pp. 137-157.

Rhode, J.G. and Lawler, E.E. (1973), ``Human resource accounting: a critical assessment'',Industrial Relations, No. 15, pp. 13-25.

Roslender, R. and Dyson, J.R. (1992), ``Accounting for the worth of employees: a new look atan old problem'', British Accounting Review, No. 24, pp. 311-29.

Scarpello, V. and Theeke, H. (1989), ``Human resource accounting: a measured critique'',Journal of Accounting Literature, Vol. 8, pp. 265-80.

TCO (1995), TCO ekonomernas hoÈ strapport (The Autumn Report from the Economists ofTCO), Stockholm.

The Swedish Association of Local Authorities. KommunfoÈrbundet (1994), Personalekonomi ikommuner (The use of HRCA in Swedish Local Authorities), Stockholm.