Network capital in the accounting system of corporate structures identification and assessment

Abstract

Abstract: Purpose. The purpose of the article is to address the scientific problem of the methodological gap between the traditional accounting paradigm, based on the principle of the autonomy of a legal entity, and the economic reality of the functioning of open network structures. The study aims to develop a theoretical and methodological approach to the identification, assessment, and accounting for "network capital" and transaction costs, as well as to empirically verify the hypothesis that current reporting standards are irrelevant for reflecting the value of interorganizational interaction. Methods. The theoretical basis of the study is formed at the intersection of the institutional theory of transaction costs and actor-network theory, which allows us to consider accounting not as a passive registration mechanism but as an active agent that constructs network relationships through orchestration and self-regulation. The empirical part of the study is based on a critical analysis of the consolidated financial statements for 2024 of the five leading agro-industrial holdings of Ukraine («MHP», «Kernel», «Astarta», «IMC», «Agrovista»). The sample was formed according to the presence of a complex network structure, the application of IFRS, and leadership in the industry. The methods of comparative analysis of asset structure, vertical analysis of the balance sheet, and synthesis of accounting models were used to process the data. Results. The study revealed a critical imbalance between the market significance of network assets and their reflection in the reporting: the average share of intangible assets in the studied holdings is only 0.6% of the balance sheet currency, which is a statistically insignificant indicator for companies whose value is formed at the expense of brands and supply chains. Based on the analysis of the structure of goodwill and rights of use, three divergent models of network capital accounting have been identified: 1) the goodwill dominance model (up to 98.5% in the NMA structure), where the network premium remains unidentified; 2) the substitution model through IFRS 16, where network control is reflected through lease rights, not intellectual capital; 3) a conservative model with minimal asset recognition. It has been established that the strict recognition criteria under IAS 38 (control, identifiability) make it impossible to capitalize on synergistic effects, leading to information asymmetry and an underestimation of the investment attractiveness of network structures. Conclusions. It is proven that the traditional accounting methodology does not provide a relevant measure of value in the conditions of the network economy, thereby creating a conflict between the economic essence of resources and their legal form. The need to introduce the category of "additional network capital" into scientific circulation and to transition to non-additive assessment models that account for the synergy of interactions among cluster participants is substantiated. Prospects for further research lie in developing standardized metrics for integrated reporting to minimize the identified accounting distortions.