One of the most intriguing questions in accounting revolves around the treatment of Human Resources, often acknowledged as a firm's most vital asset. Curiously, while textbooks unanimously praise the significance of human capital, they are clearly absent from the balance sheet and are shown in the expense side of the profit and loss account. To decipher this enigma, let's commence with a fundamental definition of what constitutes an asset in accounting. An asset, in accounting parlance, is an entity with the potential to generate economic value for a business in the future and is both owned and controlled by the firm. A classic example would be the machinery placed within a factory; these machines possess the capacity to manufacture goods, which the business subsequently markets to generate revenue. Furthermore, the business retains the right to sell the machinery at its prevailing economic worth and convert it into liquid assets. The crux here is that an asset is both owned and subject to the firm's control as per its needs.
However, when we pivot to the realm of employees, a distinctive dichotomy emerges. Employees, unlike machinery or physical assets, are not owned by the business; rather, they are engaged and contracted by the firm to contribute their expertise and services in designated capacities to ensure the business's seamless operation. Though employees undeniably play a pivotal role in revenue generation, they remain beyond the realm of firm ownership and control. This pivotal distinction casts a shadow on their qualification as traditional assets. A pertinent analogy is akin to leasing office space: if a business opts to rent a floor in a commercial building within a bustling district like Gurugram due to financial constraints, the corresponding expenses are duly reflected in the profit and loss account as operational costs. Conversely, if the business invests in purchasing office space, it is recognised as a tangible asset.
This dilemma also underscores a fundamental consideration: the nature of the employer-employee relationship. Employers, at times, inadvertently misconstrue employees as commodities to be acquired and controlled at will, akin to traditional assets. However, this perspective not only breaches ethical boundaries but also contradicts the core tenets of accounting principles. Employees are not possessions; they are individuals engaged by the firm for a defined tenure to provide services in exchange for mutually agreed-upon compensation commensurate with the quality and scope of their contributions. Deeming employees as assets undermines both the ethical fabric of the employer-employee relationship and the foundational principles of accounting, ultimately blurring the lines between economics and ethics in the corporate realm.
Vivan Pande
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and are not intended to spread misinformation or manipulate anyone. The information provided is based on the author's knowledge to the best of their ability. Readers are advised to conduct their own research and seek professional advice as needed. The author takes no responsibility for any actions taken based on this article.