Mehnaz, LauraScott, TomZang, Zeting2026-04-172026-04-172024-05-26Australian Accounting Review, ISSN: 1035-6908 (Print); 1835-2561 (Online), Wiley, 34(4), 346-365. doi: 10.1111/auar.124221035-69081835-2561http://hdl.handle.net/10292/20940We examine the reporting of intangible assets and the disclosures on intellectual capital activities by listed companies and public benefit entities in New Zealand and assess the usefulness of these disclosures. Comparing trends in intangible asset disclosure frequency, we note that the most common is capitalised software costs, followed by goodwill. For intellectual capital, we find that qualitative disclosures are more prevalent than quantitative, with disclosure on relational capital being the most frequent. In addition, we find that intangible assets are value relevant, and more intellectual capital disclosures increase the value relevance of goodwill. Finally, we consider intangible reporting by public benefit entities and show that while the rate of intangibles capitalised is similar, they are of less relative economic importance. Overall, our findings provide evidence of divergence in intangible categorisation practice, highlight the absence of reporting digital technologies and call for improved disclosure criteria for recognised and unrecognised intangibles.© 2024 The Authors. Australian Accounting Review published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of CPA Australia. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.3501 Accounting, Auditing and Accountability3502 Banking, Finance and Investment35 Commerce, Management, Tourism and Services3507 Strategy, Management and Organisational Behaviour1499 Other Economics1501 Accounting, Auditing and AccountabilityJournal ArticleOpenAccess10.1111/auar.12422