Intellectual Capital is considered an intangible asset that occurs in many organizations, especially service organizations, mainly because South African banks offer a service to their customers. This results in Intellectual Capital being an important factor in obtaining competitive advantage and success. If organizations do not consider Intellectual Capital as an important factor, it could lead to brands devoted to competitors, the loss of talented employees and unsatisfied customers. This in turn could affect the image of the organization. Financial organizations have the responsibility to identify and to monitor the various components of Intellectual Capital. Intellectual Capital consists of three main components, namely, Human Capital, Structural Capital and Relationship Capital. One of the biggest challenges of Intellectual Capital is that no one hundred percent accurate measurement method exists to measure Intellectual Capital items. An inaccurate value of Intellectual Capital leads to inaccurate disclosure of financial statements which, in turn, could result in various stakeholders (such as shareholders and public) losing faith and confidence in the organization. The purpose of the study is to describe the various components of Intellectual Capital, the linked costs and to examine the measurement of Intellectual Capital, in order to provide accurate disclosure. An empirical study was conducted to assess the impact and importance of Intellectual Capital in a South African bank. Recommendations were made on the manner problems regarding Intellectual Capital are managed and dealt with by the management of the bank. / Thesis (MCom (Management Accountancy))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2013.

Intellectual Capital is considered an intangible asset that occurs in many organizations, especially service organizations, mainly because South African banks offer a service to their customers. This results in Intellectual Capital being an important factor in obtaining competitive advantage and success. If organizations do not consider Intellectual Capital as an important factor, it could lead to brands devoted to competitors, the loss of talented employees and unsatisfied customers. This in turn could affect the image of the organization. Financial organizations have the responsibility to identify and to monitor the various components of Intellectual Capital. Intellectual Capital consists of three main components, namely, Human Capital, Structural Capital and Relationship Capital. One of the biggest challenges of Intellectual Capital is that no one hundred percent accurate measurement method exists to measure Intellectual Capital items. An inaccurate value of Intellectual Capital leads to inaccurate disclosure of financial statements which, in turn, could result in various stakeholders (such as shareholders and public) losing faith and confidence in the organization. The purpose of the study is to describe the various components of Intellectual Capital, the linked costs and to examine the measurement of Intellectual Capital, in order to provide accurate disclosure. An empirical study was conducted to assess the impact and importance of Intellectual Capital in a South African bank. Recommendations were made on the manner problems regarding Intellectual Capital are managed and dealt with by the management of the bank. / Thesis (MCom (Management Accountancy))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2013.

In the environmental context banks face direct, indirect and reputational risks from their internal operations and their external business activities. The current specific focus on the protection of the environment makes it essential for banks and their directors to be aware and stay on top of potential risks and liabilities. This is especially so because banks’ directors can be criminally prosecuted for environmental crimes. The application and effect of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act 121 of 1998 (POCA) on persons convicted of an environmental crime or crimes has been identified as a possible new or added risk for banks and their directors. Banks in addition to their normal environmental risk and liabilities also need to contend with the possibility of lender liability. Existing legislation pertinent to lender liability does not expressly or specifically deal with lender liability. Absence of judgements on lender liability further exacerbates the risks and the uncertainty for banks in South Africa. Therefore, banks remain subject to legal uncertainty and associated risks. The issue of lender liability specifically with regard to the implication of “the person in control” requires clarification. Hence, it is recommended that legislation relevant to lender liability (National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998; National Water Act 36 of 1998 and the National Environmental Management: Waste Act 59 of 2008) be revised to specifically accommodate and protect lenders (lending banks) in certain distinct circumstances. The role of banks is that of an intermediary between borrowers and lenders of money. Therefore, it influences the direction and pace of economic development and by default steers and promotes either sustainable or non-sustainable development. Currently, mainstream banks are in effect financing a brown economy and hence subscribe to a weak form of sustainability. It would seem that mainstream banks are more concerned with managing the impact that environmental risk may have on bank lending than the impact of bank lending on the environment. The evolving nature of sustainability (from weak to strong and from a brown to green economy) demands a fundamental policy change for banks. It is expected that mainstream banks will be put under even greater pressure than before to make the transition from weak to strong sustainability. Hence, banks’ current environmental risk management systems will not be sufficient to cater for new environmental risks and liabilities that the move to stronger sustainability (in the form of the green economy) will present. Banks should adopt the stronger version of sustainability; formulate environmental principles that the bank will adhere to; incorporate these environmental principles into all aspects of its lending cycle, develop an environmental risk management system that should include as a minimum the identification of all the applicable legislation pertaining to the specific financing or lending of capital, risk identification, assessment of the specific risk, implementation of risk control measures, mitigation of the risk, risk monitoring and auditing. / LLM (Environmental Law and Governance), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2014

In the environmental context banks face direct, indirect and reputational risks from their internal operations and their external business activities. The current specific focus on the protection of the environment makes it essential for banks and their directors to be aware and stay on top of potential risks and liabilities. This is especially so because banks’ directors can be criminally prosecuted for environmental crimes. The application and effect of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act 121 of 1998 (POCA) on persons convicted of an environmental crime or crimes has been identified as a possible new or added risk for banks and their directors. Banks in addition to their normal environmental risk and liabilities also need to contend with the possibility of lender liability. Existing legislation pertinent to lender liability does not expressly or specifically deal with lender liability. Absence of judgements on lender liability further exacerbates the risks and the uncertainty for banks in South Africa. Therefore, banks remain subject to legal uncertainty and associated risks. The issue of lender liability specifically with regard to the implication of “the person in control” requires clarification. Hence, it is recommended that legislation relevant to lender liability (National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998; National Water Act 36 of 1998 and the National Environmental Management: Waste Act 59 of 2008) be revised to specifically accommodate and protect lenders (lending banks) in certain distinct circumstances. The role of banks is that of an intermediary between borrowers and lenders of money. Therefore, it influences the direction and pace of economic development and by default steers and promotes either sustainable or non-sustainable development. Currently, mainstream banks are in effect financing a brown economy and hence subscribe to a weak form of sustainability. It would seem that mainstream banks are more concerned with managing the impact that environmental risk may have on bank lending than the impact of bank lending on the environment. The evolving nature of sustainability (from weak to strong and from a brown to green economy) demands a fundamental policy change for banks. It is expected that mainstream banks will be put under even greater pressure than before to make the transition from weak to strong sustainability. Hence, banks’ current environmental risk management systems will not be sufficient to cater for new environmental risks and liabilities that the move to stronger sustainability (in the form of the green economy) will present. Banks should adopt the stronger version of sustainability; formulate environmental principles that the bank will adhere to; incorporate these environmental principles into all aspects of its lending cycle, develop an environmental risk management system that should include as a minimum the identification of all the applicable legislation pertaining to the specific financing or lending of capital, risk identification, assessment of the specific risk, implementation of risk control measures, mitigation of the risk, risk monitoring and auditing. / LLM (Environmental Law and Governance), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2014