Varieties of Capitalism vs. Varieties of ‘Soft Regulatory’ Theories. A Discussion on the Case of Intangibles Reporting in Japan and Germany

To study “accounting in organizations and society” (Burchell et al. 1980) is a “resolution” that many scholars have made over the past thirty years. Accordingly, mainly throughout the 1980s, several studies have focused their attention on the investigation of accounting practices in international comparison, casting light upon the potential to discern in this way the similarities and differences that can exist among them in (dis-)similar countries. Based on the observations reached by these works, classification’s attempts in terms of influencing factors, such as economic, social, political environments, cultural patterns and regulatory styles, have been formulated by researchers and agencies worldwide (Mueller 1967, 1968; Seidler 1967; AAA 1977; Puxty et al. 1987; Doupnik and Salter 1995). In addition, theoretical frameworks have advanced in this respect (Nobes and Parker 1981; Gray 1988; Gray et al. 1995; Zambon 1996). Recently, this comparative trend has expanded and piqued the interest of scholars in other fields of research, for example, accounting historians, who have advocated for a new perspective on the investigation of accounting history, called comparative international accounting history (CIAH) (Carnegie and Napier 2002). In relation to the nonfinancial arena, it is interesting to note that numerous works have examined the adoption of intangibles reporting (IR) in comparison. However, such an innovative device has been mainly examined at a micro (organizational) level in terms of management, measurement and disclosure techniques (de Pablos 2002; Vandemaele et al. 2005; Vergauwen and Van Alem 2005; Bozzolan et al. 2006; Guthrie et al. 2006; Chaminade and Roberts 2010). Few studies have investigated its macro (national) potential in terms of recommending initiatives and implementation processes (Lin and Edvinsson 2010).