1. Introduction
The valuation of biological assets represents a strategic aspect in the accounting management of the agricultural sector, due to the particular nature of these resources and their central role in agricultural and livestock operations. These assets, such as crops, livestock, and forest resources, are characterized by their constant biological transformation, which poses significant challenges to their measurement and accounting presentation. In an environment increasingly influenced by market uncertainty, climate change, and pressure for accounting transparency, selecting the right valuation method has become a priority for both rural businesses and accounting policymakers (Rezende et al., 2022).
There are three main approaches to valuing biological assets: fair value, historical cost, and discounted cash flow. Fair value is the predominant method, supported by IAS 41, and allows the current value of assets to be reflected based on market conditions (Leitner & Lehner, 2023). This approach can increase the transparency of accounting and financial information by recognizing changes in the economic value of biological resources in a timely manner. However, its practical application can generate uncertainty in contexts where markets are unstable, illiquid or lack reliable reference prices, as is the case in many agricultural regions of the world.
On the other hand, the use of historical cost offers a more conservative alternative by recording assets by their acquisition or production value (Fernandes et al., 2016). This approach provides greater accounting stability and reduces the impact of external fluctuations on financial statements (Fiandrino et al., 2022). However, its main limitation is that it may not adequately capture the current value of biological assets, affecting the usefulness of the information for strategic and investment purposes (García et al., 2023).
The discounted cash flow method represents an intermediate point, as it focuses on calculating the present value of the future economic benefits expected to be obtained from biological assets (Jeriji & Nasfi, 2022). This approach considers factors such as expected return, operating costs, and associated risks, offering a more holistic view of economic value (Mirović et al., 2019). Its disadvantage, however, is the high dependence on estimates and assumptions, which can decrease the reliability of the results if rigorous technical criteria are not applied (Suttipun, 2021).
The selection of the valuation method has a direct impact on the quality of financial information, particularly on its reliability, relevance, and ability to support decision-making (Pires et al., 2021). It is indicated that users of accounting information—including investors, managers, and auditors—place a particular value on the reliability of accounting estimates, over and above their simple regulatory alignment (Al-mulla & Bradbury, 2022). In agricultural environments where production conditions and prices are volatile, accounting reporting based solely on fair value may be perceived as less credible if it is not accompanied by adequate disclosure of the assumptions used and the risks involved.
In this sense, external auditing and sustainability verification practices have gained importance as mechanisms to strengthen trust in financial information related to biological assets (Cavalheiro et al., 2019; López-Solís et al., 2025). These practices add value not only from a technical point of view but also in terms of legitimacy before third parties and access to financing.
In addition, accounting valuation not only serves an informative function but also impacts the strategic planning of agricultural companies (Bispo & Lopes, 2022). An accurate and contextualized measurement of biological assets allows informed decisions to be made about the type of crop, the production cycle, investment in technology, productive diversification, and climate risk management. In this way, accounting becomes a key tool for the economic sustainability and resilience of the rural sector (Oreida, 2022).
Finally, it is necessary that the valuation of biological assets be adapted to the specific characteristics of each agricultural activity. Differences such as the type of asset (temporary crops, permanent crops, or breeding livestock), the production model, and the duration of the biological cycle have a significant influence on the relationship between the investment made and the profitability obtained (Rojo et al., 2018; Hernández & Tolentino, 2024). Consequently, a valuation that adequately reflects the context and particularities of each company can translate into higher levels of profitability, efficiency in the use of resources, and greater confidence on the part of stakeholders.
This article aims to conduct a systematic review of empirical evidence on the methods of valuation of biological assets and their effects on the quality and usefulness of financial information in the agricultural sector. The aim is to identify patterns, challenges, and opportunities for the strengthening of accounting practices and their alignment with the current information needs of actors in the rural environment.
The accounting of biological assets represents one of the greatest challenges within international accounting regulations, especially in sectors where the transformation and growth of assets are subject to unpredictable biological factors, as is the case of the agricultural sector. International Accounting Standard 41 (IAS 41) establishes the use of fair value as the main basis for measurement, which has generated extensive academic and professional debate regarding its applicability, reliability, and usefulness in contexts of high volatility and limited availability of active markets. This situation raises questions about whether the valuation methods recommended by IAS 41 actually contribute to improving the quality, accuracy, and relevance of the accounting information required by the various stakeholders—producers, investors, regulators, and financial institutions—for decision-making. In this context, it is necessary to systematically examine the existing scientific literature to identify the predominant approaches, the recurrent criticisms, and the gaps that still exist with respect to the practical application of this standard in the agricultural field.
The study is organized into the following sections: (i) Introduction, (ii) Theoretical Framework, (iii) Materials and Methods, (iv) Results, (v) Discussion, (vi) Conclusions, and (vii) References.
2. Theoretical Framework
The analysis of the valuation of biological assets and their relationship with the reasonableness of accounting and financial information in the agricultural sector requires a theoretical review that allows understanding the accounting, regulatory, and economic foundations that support this practice. The application of fair value, established by International Accounting Standard IAS 41, introduces specific challenges in contexts where biological assets represent the productive base of companies. Through this theoretical framework, key concepts such as the nature of biological assets, applicable valuation methods, the quality of financial information and its impact on business profitability, as well as the challenges associated with the implementation of international standards in rural environments, are addressed.
2.1. Biological Assets: Concept, Classification, and Characteristics
2.1.1. Concept
According to International Accounting Standard (IAS) 41, biological assets are defined as “a living animal or plant” (Garcia & Cano, 2021). These biological assets are classified into two categories: consumable biological assets and production biological assets. IAS 41 states that biological assets must be measured at fair value with less costs to sell unless fair value cannot be reliably determined. This has a direct impact on the valuation of biological assets and, therefore, on the profitability of companies in the agricultural sector (Arévalo et al., 2018).
In addition, IAS 41 requires companies to disclose information about their biological assets, such as the description of each group of biological assets, changes in fair value minus costs to sell, and investment in biological assets (Ríos et al., 2024). The accounting treatment of biological assets according to IAS 41 is essential for companies in the agricultural sector to improve their profitability through a reliable and accurate valuation of these assets.
2.1.2. Classification
According to International Accounting Standard (IAS) 41, biological assets are classified into two main categories (Rosas et al., 2022): Consumable biological assets: These are those that are to be harvested as agricultural products or sold as biological assets, such as cattle for meat, annual crops, etc. Biological production assets: These are those that are used to produce other products, such as dairy cattle, fruit trees, timber trees, etc.
IAS 41 states that biological assets must be measured at fair value with less costs to sell unless fair value cannot be reliably determined. In addition, the standard requires companies to disclose information about their biological assets, such as the description of each group of biological assets, changes in fair value minus costs to sell, and investment in biological assets (Pinzón & Suárez, 2017).
2.1.3. Characteristics
According to International Accounting Standard (IAS) 41, the main factors affecting the valuation of biological assets are (Oreida, 2022): Biological cycle: Biological assets undergo a biological transformation throughout their life cycle, which alters their substance and generates changes in the value of the asset. Age: The age of the biological asset is a determining factor in its valorization since biological changes vary according to the stage of the life cycle. Genetic quality: The genetic quality of the biological asset influences its growth and production potential, which is reflected in its fair value. Climatic conditions: Climatic factors such as temperature, rainfall, etc. affect the development and growth of biological assets, impacting their valorization. Other factors: In addition, IAS 41 mentions that the valuation of biological assets is influenced by various external factors that cause unpredictable changes in them.
IAS 41 establishes that biological assets must be measured at fair value minus costs of sale, considering factors such as the biological cycle, age, genetic quality, and climatic conditions, among others, which affect their valuation (Ríos et al., 2024).
2.2. Accounting Valuation and Fair Value in the Agricultural Sector
Under International Accounting Standard IAS 41, the valuation of biological assets should preferably be performed using fair value less estimated costs at the point of sale. This approach seeks to objectively reflect the current value of assets in the market, allowing a more accurate representation of their impact on financial statements.
2.2.1. Fair Value Minus Costs to Sell
This is the method recommended by IAS 41, as it consists of estimating the market value of the biological asset under normal sales conditions and deducting the costs necessary to conduct the transaction (Bohušová & Svoboda, 2017). In addition, it reflects an up-to-date and objective measurement, as long as there is an active market. Its application depends on the availability of reliable information on prices and markets, which can be a limitation in rural areas or informal economies, and improves comparability between companies in the same sector and allows for greater transparency in financial statements (van Biljon & Wingard, 2020).
2.2.2. Discounted Cash Flow Model
It is used when there is no active market that allows fair value to be reliably determined. This estimates the present value of the expected future cash flows that the biological assets will generate. It requires the projection of revenue, costs, growth rates, and discount rates, which implies a high level of professional judgment. It is considered a more technical and personalized method, ideal for complex or unique assets (van Biljon & Wingard, 2020). Its reliability depends on the quality and consistency of the historical and financial data available.
2.2.3. Accrued Cost Model (Cost Model)
It is admitted as an exception when it is not possible to reliably determine the fair value of the biological asset. It is responsible for measuring the assets at historical cost, minus any accumulated depreciation and impairment losses (Menezes & Ciampaglia, 2023). It is a more conservative method, used in small companies or where market information is limited. This does not reflect changes in the value of assets as accurately as previous methods and can be useful as a temporary alternative while improving fair value measurement capability (van Biljon & Wingard, 2020).
2.3. Relationship Between Valuation of Biological Assets and Business Profitability
2.3.1. Impact on Financial Statements
The valuation of biological assets has a direct influence on the way the financial statements of agricultural companies are presented. As these are elements that represent the core of productive activity, their proper measurement allows the economic situation of the organization to be reflected more accurately, and variations in their value can directly affect equity, income, and, therefore, reported profitability (Ika et al., 2024).
2.3.2. Recognition of Changes in Fair Value
In accordance with IAS 41, changes in the fair value of biological assets must be recognized in the income statement for the period in which they occur. This implies that fluctuations in the market, the state of the asset, or external factors such as weather can generate immediate positive or negative impacts on accounting performance, which introduces greater volatility in financial reporting (Ika et al., 2024).
2.3.3. Disclosure and Business Value Creation
Greater transparency and disclosure of information related to biological assets, including the valuation methods used, the assumptions applied, and the associated risks, can contribute significantly to strengthening the trust of external users. This, in turn, can translate into a better positioning of the company in the eyes of investors, creditors, and other stakeholders, generating long-term value (Paliuliené & Knyviené, 2024).
2.3.4. Effect of Valuation Methods on Profitability
The methodology used to evaluate biological assets—whether fair value or historical cost—has a direct impact on the company’s reported profitability (Wegrzynska & Nowotarska, 2021). Fair value may reflect an outcome closer to market conditions, but it also entails greater volatility. On the contrary, the historical cost tends to be more stable, although less representative of the real economic value of the asset. The choice of one or the other method can modify the perception of financial performance (Paliuliené & Knyviené, 2024).
2.3.5. Biological Transformation and Accounting Limitations
The dynamic nature of biological assets, which go through growth, degeneration, reproduction, or harvesting processes, poses significant challenges for traditional accounting (Zlati & Mirica, 2021). This biological transformation introduces uncertainty in terms of the estimation of future benefits, so more sensitive and specific accounting approaches are required to adequately capture these changes (Ika et al., 2024).
2.3.6. Need for Suitable Measurement Models
Given the complexity and particularities of the agricultural sector, it is necessary to apply measurement methods that more reliably reflect the costs incurred and the expected cash flows (Ika et al., 2024). In this context, discounted cash flow models can offer a more accurate alternative to fair value in situations where there are no active markets or when prices fluctuate irregularly.
In summary, the valuation of biological assets has a significant effect on the profitability reported by agricultural companies. Given the continuous transformation of these assets and the uncertainty inherent in their development, it is essential to have accounting approaches that are more appropriate and adjusted to the reality of the sector, which allow reliable and useful information for decision-making.
2.4. Challenges and Perspectives in the Implementation of IAS 41
The valuation of biological assets is a determining element in the presentation of the financial statements of companies in the agricultural sector because these assets represent the essential component of their productive structure. In this context, any variation in its value directly affects the accounting result for the period, as well as the perception of the financial stability and economic performance of the entity (van Biljon & Wingard, 2020). In accordance with International Accounting Standard IAS 41, changes in the fair value of biological assets must be immediately recognized in the income statement, which introduces a volatility dynamic that, although it more realistically reflects the behavior of the assets, can generate uncertainty in the interpretation of profit margins (Komoldinov, 2024b).
In addition, greater disclosure of specific information about biological assets—such as their type, age, sanitary conditions, valuation methods used, and assumptions applied—not only improves accounting transparency but can also increase the perceived value of the company in the market by strengthening the confidence of investors and other users of financial statements (Komoldinov, 2024a). This transparency becomes even more relevant if one considers that the valuation methods applied, such as fair value or historical cost, have a direct impact on reported profitability. While fair value may offer a picture more aligned with current market conditions, historical cost tends to present more stable results but less representative of the real economic value of the asset (Tanaka & Castillo, 2023).
The choice between these methods is not trivial, as it influences the way the company’s financial performance is interpreted. A company that uses fair value could report higher profits in a context of rising prices but also record abrupt losses if market values fall. Therefore, the valuation methodology affects both the measurement of profitability, and the credibility and usefulness of the financial information reported (Tanaka & Castillo, 2023).
On the other hand, the biological transformation inherent in these assets—the process by which living organisms change by growth, reproduction, or degeneration—represents a challenge for traditional accounting systems, which were not designed to capture this dynamic and complex nature (Menezes & Ciampaglia, 2023). The uncertainty surrounding production outcomes, biological life cycles, and climate risks requires the adoption of more appropriate measurement methods that allow for a faithful representation of real cash flows and costs associated with agricultural production.
In this sense, the use of discounted cash flow models may be more appropriate than fair value in contexts where there are no active markets or where sales conditions are unstable. This approach makes it possible to estimate the present value of the expected future revenues of biological assets, considering factors such as risk, discount rate, and the operating conditions of the company (Pinzón & Suárez, 2017).
In short, the way in which biological assets are valued not only influences the accuracy and reasonableness of financial information but also the reported profitability and the way in which the different stakeholders perceive the company. Therefore, it is essential to develop and apply accounting approaches that are adjusted to the particularities of the agricultural sector, especially with regard to the recognition, measurement, and dissemination of the effects of biological transformation and the volatility inherent in the productive environment.
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Approach and Review Strategy
This study was developed under a systematic review methodology, with the purpose of identifying and analyzing empirical evidence related to the methods of valuation of biological assets and their influence on the quality of financial information in the agricultural field. The PRISMA 2020 protocol (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) was adopted as a structural guide in order to guarantee transparency, reproducibility, and methodological rigor in all stages of the process.
This methodology allowed the identification, selection, eligibility, and inclusion phases of the studies to be properly structured, ensuring traceability at each stage of the analysis. The use of PRISMA contributed to minimizing selection biases and strengthened the quality of the scientific evidence collected around the application of IAS 41 in the context of biological assets in the agricultural sector.
First, the objectives of the review were defined, and explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria were formulated. Subsequently, search strategies were designed based on specific keywords and terms related to the topic, such as biological assets, valuation methods, fair value, IAS 41, agricultural accounting, reliability of financial information, and business profitability.
Bibliographic research focused on two of the most prestigious scientific databases, Scopus and Web of Science, prioritizing studies published between 2010 and 2025. Only peer-reviewed, empirical articles were selected, addressing the accounting treatment of biological assets in relation to the quality, usefulness, or reliability of financial reporting.
The bibliographic research conducted based on keywords allowed us to identify recurrent trends in the scientific literature on the valuation of biological assets. To structure and visualize these relationships, the VOSviewer (version 1.6.20) software was used, which automatically grouped the terms that co-occur most frequently in the analyzed research. The first set of keywords identified included “accounting”, “valuation”, “permanent crops” and “IAS 41”, suggesting a focus on the regulatory and technical aspects of accounting for biological assets, especially in relation to long-term crops, where the application of IAS 41 is critical (Figure 1a).
On the other hand, the second group grouped the terms “biological assets”, “forest accounting”, and “forest fair value” reflecting a more specific interest in the forest sector and the challenges associated with measuring fair value in this area (Figure 1b). This classification shows that literature has been developed in two main axes: a general and normative one and a more sectoral and applied one, which indicates the diversity of contexts in which the valuation of biological assets becomes relevant for decision-making and the reliable presentation of financial information.
During the exploratory phase of the literature search, a high relationship was identified between the keywords “biological assets”, “CIN 41”, and “fair value”, which motivated the use of Boolean operators (AND, OR) to refine and direct the results towards more relevant studies. These three expressions show a strong conceptual interdependence: IAS 41 constitutes the regulatory basis for the recognition and measurement of biological assets, whose accounting treatment is based on the application of fair value as a valuation criterion (Figure 2). The combined use of these terms through Boolean operators made it possible to filter out research that comprehensively addressed both the regulatory framework and the measurement methodology, thus facilitating the identification of studies with greater technical rigor and analytical relevance. This correlation shows that academic and professional debates are not only focused on the existence of biological assets but also on the practical and conceptual challenges involved in their valuation under international standards, particularly with regard to the reliability and transparency of financial information.
The keywords “biological assets” encompass research in both plant and animal domains, reflecting the diversity of applications of IAS 41. In the case of plants, studies on permanent crops stand out, while in animals, species intended for production are analyzed. This duality evidences the academic interest in understanding the accounting particularities of both types of assets.
3.2. Procedure for Systematization and Selection of Studies
The search strategy combined thematic terms and Boolean operators, adapted for each database. Expressions used included the following:
(“biological assets” OR “agricultural assets”) AND (“valuation” OR “measurement” OR “valuation” OR “fair value”) AND (“IAS 41” OR “International Accounting Standard 41” OR “accounting standard” OR “accounting regulation”) AND (“accounting” OR “finance” OR “financial reporting” OR “financial reporting”) AND (“plants” OR “permanent crops” OR “animals” OR “livestock production” OR “forest accounting”).
Specific filters were applied to narrow the search to documents published between 2010 and 2025, prioritizing those available in full text and in scientific journals. Likewise, the thematic areas of interest were delimited to (i) business sciences, management and accounting; (ii) agricultural and biological sciences; and (iii) economics, econometrics, and finance. Regarding the language, no restrictions were established, considering the linguistic diversity common in this type of study. Publications in English, Portuguese, Spanish, German, and Ukrainian were included.
The selection of studies was conducted in two stages. In the first, titles and abstracts were evaluated to rule out irrelevant papers. In the second phase, an exhaustive review of the full text was conducted to ensure its thematic relevance, methodological quality, and validity of the findings. The information extracted was organized into comparative matrices, which allowed detecting recurring patterns, relevant contributions, and research gaps that justify the present study.
Finally, the inclusion and exclusion criteria were established, which are detailed in order to ensure consistency in the selection of studies and to delimit the scope of the review (Table 1).
In the present study, we chose to exclude the gray literature—such as unpublished dissertations, theses, working papers, and institutional reports—in order to guarantee the methodological rigor and scientific quality of the sources analyzed. This decision is based on the need to base systematic review on research validated by peer review processes, which ensures a higher degree of reliability and replicability of the results.
3.3. PRISMA Flow Chart
As shown in Figure 3, articles were initially identified through searches of various academic databases such as SCOPUS and Web of Science. During the initial selection phase, 294 articles were obtained, of which 130 were discarded due to the relevance of their titles and because they did not contain a financial-accounting approach. The selection process resulted in a total of 30 articles, as 134 did not contain clear information in their findings about the valuation of biological assets and the evidence needed with IAS 41.
3.4. Research Questions and Analytical Approach
The literature review was guided by a central research question: How do the valuation methods established in IAS 41 affect the relevance, accuracy, and usefulness of the accounting and financial information presented by the agricultural sector?
This question guided the search strategy, based on the systematic use of selected and combined keywords using Boolean operators (AND, OR), which allowed us to precisely delimit the documents most pertinent to the object of study.
The construction of the question and the selection of the key terms responded to the objective of clearly identifying the relationship between the accounting measurement methods of biological assets and the quality of the resulting financial information, in terms of its usefulness for decision-making.
Based on this main question, four questions were structured that facilitated the delimitation of key thematic areas within the analysis, allowing a systematic and coherent approach with the conceptual framework of the research.
Q1: How does the correct valuation of biological assets influence the quality of financial and strategic decision-making in the agricultural sector?
Q2: In which countries are studies on the valuation of biological assets mainly concentrated?
Q3: What are the differences between the methodologies used for the valuation of biological assets, and how do these divergences affect the comparability of financial reports between different regions or companies?
Q4: What are the main challenges organizations face in applying for IAS 41 in practice?
These questions served as an articulating axis both for the documentary search phase and for the subsequent interpretation of the results by providing a frame of reference that guaranteed a critical, systematic, and focused reading of the reviewed scientific literature.
4. Results
This section presents the findings derived from the systematic analysis of the literature, aimed at answering the research question. To this end, scientific studies published between 2010 and 2025 were examined, selected based on rigorous inclusion and exclusion criteria, as well as through a structured search strategy with keywords and Boolean operators. The results are organized around the key dimensions identified during the categorization process: (i) approach and application of valuation methods according to IAS 41; (ii) impacts on the relevance and accuracy of the financial statements; (iii) usefulness of financial information for the different stakeholders; and (iv) challenges and limitations in the accounting implementation of biological assets. This analysis allows us to identify trends, gaps, and points of convergence in literature, which offer a solid basis for understanding the current state of knowledge and its relevance in the accounting practice of the agricultural sector.
In the first instance, a concurrence diagram is presented that shows the relationships between the main authors cited. In this systematic review, both empirical approach and literature analysis. The visualization, generated with the VOSviewer tool, shows the existence of an active academic network around the study of biological assets and their accounting valuation under IAS 41. This network reveals not only the frequency of collaboration between authors but also the consolidation of nuclei of interdisciplinary scientific production (Figure 4). The presence of multiple connections suggests that the topic has aroused interest in various areas, such as financial accounting, agricultural management, and rural economics, which reinforces its transversal nature and the need for integrative approaches to understand its impact on the usefulness, accuracy, and relevance of financial information in the agricultural sector. The authors identified in Figure 3 have the studies with the highest number of citations and correspond to the pioneers in research of this type.
Figure 5 shows a map of keyword concurrence prepared with the VOSviewer tool, based on the studies included in the systematic review. The graph identifies thematic clusters that reveal the main areas of research focus linked to IAS 41 and biological assets. The central node, “biological assets” stands out, which is connected to key concepts such as “financial reporting”, “disclosure”, “measurement”, and “value relevance”, which shows the interest in analyzing the usefulness and transparency of financial information in this area. In addition, the presence of terms such as “IAS 41”, “bearer plants”, and “CPC 29” reflects the attention paid to specific regulations and variations in their application. This visualization allows us to understand how accounting, regulatory, and productive approaches are articulated within the academic debate on the measurement of biological assets.
From the comparative analysis, recurrent patterns and significant divergences in measurement are identified, revealing both advances and persistent challenges in the accounting practice of the agricultural sector.
From a temporal point of view, the analysis includes articles published between 2010 and 2025. The evolution of scientific production on the accounting measurement of biological assets under IAS 41, represented in Figure 6, shows a fluctuating trend in the number of studies published annually between 2010 and 2025. In the first years (2010–2014), there was a gradual growth in research interest, going from a single study in 2010 to two studies per year between 2014 and 2017. This initial stage reflects the first efforts to understand and interpret the application of accounting standards in different agricultural contexts.
From 2017 onwards, there is evidence of a more sustained increase in production, reaching a significant peak in 2020. This increase could be related to the advance of international accounting convergence and the greater recognition of biological assets in financial statements, which has encouraged researchers to explore their practical and theoretical implications. The year 2020 is positioned as the period of greatest scientific productivity, with five published studies, which suggests a turning point in the development of empirical knowledge on the subject. This concentration may be linked to a combination of factors, such as strengthening regulatory frameworks, increasing availability of agricultural financial data, and a renewed interest in information transparency in the wake of disruptive global events such as the pandemic.
However, this trend has not been maintained in a linear way. Production declined again in 2021, rebounded in 2022 and 2023, and fell sharply in 2024. This uneven behavior reflects the methodological and contextual difficulties inherent in research on biological assets, including the complexity of their valuation, the differences between national accounting systems, and the limitations in access to reliable data. Despite this, the continuity of studies in intercalated years demonstrates a persistent, although fragmented, academic interest.
These findings underscore the need to strengthen longitudinal lines of research and to promote greater international collaboration to generate robust comparative evidence. In addition, there is significant room for future research to delve into the economic, financial, and strategic effects of the application of IAS 41, particularly in regions with high agricultural activity and low regulatory consolidation.
The geographical distribution of the studies included in the systematic review (Figure 7) reveals a significant concentration of research in countries with strong agricultural development and a greater degree of implementation of international accounting standards. Brazil stands out as the main reference in scientific production on the subject, accumulating the largest number of publications (6 studies), which reflects its commitment to financial transparency in the agricultural sector, as well as the academic interest in addressing the implications of IAS 41 in a country with a wide biological diversity and an economy strongly linked to agribusiness.
It is followed by countries such as the United States, Canada, Chile, Spain, China, and Russia, with a moderate presence in the literature (1 or 2 studies each). This pattern suggests active but unequal participation in research on the accounting valuation of biological assets. In the case of nations such as the United States and Canada, the focus may be associated with specific productive sectors and the interest in harmonizing international accounting practices, while in countries such as Chile, agricultural and export development could explain their inclusion in this line of research.
In Europe and Asia, there is evidence of an incipient or focused interest, motivated by processes of partial adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) and the search for technical criteria applicable to contexts with different production structures. Despite the presence of these countries, the map also reveals large regional gaps, especially in Africa and parts of Asia, where significant research on IAS 41 has not been recorded, evidencing a significant gap in terms of academic representation and contextualized evidence generation.
This unequal distribution highlights the need to foster international cooperation and the development of comparative studies to understand how cultural, economic, regulatory, and environmental factors influence the practical application of IAS 41. It also highlights the urgency of expanding research in underrepresented regions to strengthen the global evidence base and promote more inclusive standardization in agricultural accounting.
In order to rigorously answer the research question posed, a summary table has been prepared that integrates the most representative studies included in this systematic review (Table 2). This synthesis allows us to clearly identify the main empirical contributions to the accounting measurement of biological assets under IAS 41, considering aspects such as the valuation method used, the type of asset analyzed, and the effects reported on the quality of accounting information and business decision-making. This systematization is key to understanding the prevailing approaches and the gaps that still exist in the literature, providing valuable inputs to strengthen the theoretical and methodological framework of future research in the field of agricultural accounting.
The summary table identified that most of the studies focused on the use of fair value as the main method of valuation, although contextual differences still persist with respect to the application of IAS 41, particularly in developing countries, where the cost model is chosen due to market constraints or operational difficulties. Studies of specific applications in sectors such as forestry, banana production, livestock, and organic agriculture are highlighted, providing a broad and diverse vision on the implementation of international accounting standards.
5. Discussion
The systematic review showed that the valuation methods established in IAS 41, particularly fair value and the historical cost model, have a significant impact on the quality of financial information in the agricultural sector. The use of fair value tends to increase the relevance and usefulness of the information by reflecting actual economic changes in biological assets, which favors managerial decision-making and transparency to investors (Bohušová & Svoboda, 2017; Alana et al., 2022). However, its application faces limitations in contexts with inactive markets or unreliable data, which affects the accuracy of estimates, generating accounting uncertainty (Rabassi et al., 2020; Herrera et al., 2021; Bozzolan et al., 2016). On the other hand, the historical cost model, although less sensitive to market changes, offers greater verifiability and stability in environments with limited availability of information or rudimentary financial structures, as observed in studies of developing countries (Xie et al., 2020; Tanaka & Castillo, 2023). Consequently, IAS 41 has a differentiated impact depending on the institutional and economic environment in which it is applied, and its correct implementation requires technical criteria adjusted to the conditions of the crop, the country, and the availability of data so that the financial information is effectively relevant, accurate, and useful. The answers to the research sub-questions are presented:
5.1. Q1: How Does the Correct Valuation of Biological Assets Influence the Quality of Financial and Strategic Decision-Making in the Agricultural Sector?
The correct valuation of biological assets in the agricultural sector has been widely debated, and although the specialized literature (Huffman, 2018; Rabassi et al., 2020; Maksymiv et al., 2022) presents a favorable trend towards the application of fair value as the predominant method, it is necessary to qualify these statements from a critical and contextualized perspective. Indeed, it has been shown that the appropriate use of fair value can improve the quality of financial information, making it more useful for strategic planning, obtaining financing, and decision-making (Rabassi et al., 2020). However, the relationship between accounting valuation and business decisions is not linear or automatic.
In this sense, the modification of key indicators such as liquidity and reported profitability, a direct consequence of the measurement of low fair value, raises questions about the comparability and stability of financial statements in volatile or low-regulated contexts. While these changes may provide a closer picture of the market value of assets, they also introduce greater exposure to subjective judgments and estimates, which represents a risk in terms of accounting reliability and consistency (Alana et al., 2022).
Likewise, studies by Mirović et al. (2019) and Sakovié et al. (2020) reinforce the connection between information transparency and financial performance, suggesting that it is not only the valuation method that matters, but also the clarity and completeness with which the assumptions and criteria used are communicated. In sectors such as agriculture, characterized by biological cycles, climatic uncertainty, and high seasonality, the valuation of biological assets cannot be separated from the productive context or the technical capacity of those who prepare and use accounting information (Killi & Kefe, 2024).
Therefore, while empirical findings support the use of methodologies such as fair value to optimize strategic decision-making, caution is required when generalizing these benefits, especially in emerging economies or regions where structural, technological, and training constraints persist. The congruence between the method adopted and the specific characteristic of the productive environment is crucial to avoid distortions that could negatively affect organizational performance.
5.2. Q2: In Which Countries Are Studies on the Valuation of Biological Assets Mainly Concentrated?
The geographical concentration of studies on the valuation of biological assets, identified mainly in countries such as Brazil, Turkey, Latvia, and China (Rabassi et al., 2020; Buyukarikan, 2019; Arbidane & Mietule, 2018; Xie et al., 2020), reveals not only an unequal distribution of research interest, but also the influence of structural factors on the applicability and development of IAS 41. In these contexts, where the agricultural sector represents a significant proportion of GDP and institutional and economic conditions are changing, the discussion on the measurement of biological assets takes on technical and strategic relevance. International regulations, in this sense, do not operate in a vacuum, but interact with the socio-economic reality and maturity of local accounting systems.
The case of South America, presented by Fernandes et al. (2016), is particularly illustrative. The scarce presence of active markets leads to more frequent recourse to alternative methods such as historical cost or discounted cash flow, which introduces a methodological diversity that is not always captured in global regulatory frameworks. This phenomenon suggests that thematic concentration not only responds to the size of the agricultural sector, but also to the challenges involved in implementing international standards in environments with low liquidity, productive informality, and limited access to specialized technical or human resources.
Along these lines, the contributions of Giertliová et al. (2017) and Acuña et al. (2020) invite us to consider that the study of IAS 41 in countries with complex agricultural structures and less accounting development can constitute a competitive advantage, both at a strategic and reputational level. In other words, the correct application of this regulation not only improves the quality of financial information but can also project an image of transparency and institutional modernization before financial actors, regulators, and international markets.
However, the underrepresentation of regions such as sub-Saharan Africa, Central America, or Southeast Asia in the studies reviewed raises questions about regional biases in scientific production and about the degree of actual adoption of IAS 41 in contexts with poor institutional infrastructure or high dependence on subsistence agriculture. This gap represents an opportunity to foster comparative and collaborative research to understand how biological asset accounting adapts and reconfigures in highly vulnerable and diverse environments.
5.3. Q3: What Are the Differences Between the Methodologies Used for the Valuation of Biological Assets, and How Do These Divergences Affect the Comparability of Financial Reports Between Different Regions or Companies?
Methodological differences in the valuation of biological assets are one of the main challenges for accounting harmonization at the international level. The literature review reveals a notable disparity in the approaches used, which not only responds to technical considerations but also to contextual factors such as the availability of active markets, information infrastructure, and institutional development in each region (Fernandes et al., 2016; Bohušová & Svoboda, 2017; Buyukarikan, 2019). Thus, while in Europe and some Asian countries the use of fair value backed by liquid markets prevails, in Latin America there is a strong trend towards alternative methods such as historical cost or discounted cash flow due to the lack of reliable and stable data (Fernandes et al., 2016).
This methodological diversity has profound implications for the comparability of financial statements, a key principle in general-purpose accounting reporting. Studies such as those by Herrera et al. (2021), Jordão and Menezes (2021), and Peštović et al. (2022) highlight that these divergences generate different levels of volatility and accuracy in reporting, directly affecting the quality of financial analysis. In particular, the choice of method may amplify or smooth the recognition of income and expenses, which distorts profitability, solvency, or equity value indicators between companies or sectors operating under different rules.
The question of subjectivity becomes even more critical in unstable or highly uncertain environments, where the use of estimative methods, such as discounted cash flow, requires sensitive and often unverifiable assumptions. In this sense, Leitner and Lehner (2023) warn that these methodological decisions can introduce accounting asymmetries that limit comparative analysis and affect the transparency of the financial system, especially when external users lack the means to properly interpret the criteria used.
The warning of Pires et al. (2021) about the confusion generated in external users is especially relevant for small and medium-sized enterprises in the agricultural sector, where financial reports are usually the main and sometimes only source of information for investors, lenders, and regulatory bodies. This methodological fragmentation not only weakens the usefulness of accounting information as a sectoral evaluation tool but also poses challenges in terms of auditing, public policy, and sustainable development.
From a regulatory perspective, these divergences call into question the ability of IAS 41 to meet its objective of generating transparent, comparable, and globally relevant financial information. Despite its harmonizing intention, the practical application of this standard reveals a tension between the theoretical principles and the operational reality of the various production contexts.
5.4. Q4: What Are the Main Challenges Organizations Face in Applying for IAS 41 in Practice?
The practical application of IAS 41 continues to face significant challenges that go beyond technical accounting issues. Although its purpose is to improve the economic representation of biological assets through the use of fair value, the literature reviewed shows significant obstacles of a technical, institutional, contextual, and even ethical nature (Klychova et al., 2014; Wen-hsin Hsu et al., 2019; Ociпчyк et al., 2024). One of the main problems lies in the absence of reliable active markets, which severely limits the possibility of determining an objective and verifiable fair value, especially in sectors with long cycles or assets of permanent use, as pointed out by Queiroz et al. (2020) and Huffman (2018).
The application of fair value, in these cases, is forced to resort to estimates based on cash flows or internal models, which introduce a high degree of subjectivity. This phenomenon, while inherent in many accounting processes, becomes particularly problematic when professionals lack the tools or judgments necessary to formulate robust assumptions or when there is pressure to modify accounting results for strategic or fiscal purposes. In this regard, Alana et al. (2022) and Grege (2010) warn about the risk of fair value manipulation to inflate assets or show artificially favorable results, which constitutes a major ethical and regulatory challenge.
Moreover, it cannot sustain the weight of the socio-cultural factors that mediate the adoption of international norms. Kurniawan et al. (2014) argue that the accounting harmonization process cannot be detached from local realities, which include organizational culture, level of professional development, historical reporting practices, and social perception of financial transparency. In many cases, these barriers not only slow down the implementation of IAS 41 but also generate internal resistance that affects its legitimacy or perceived usefulness.
Faced with this scenario, there is a need to rethink the regulatory flexibility of IAS 41, especially for its application in agro-productive contexts where it is not always feasible or efficient to follow uniform standards. The literature agrees that an overly rigid interpretation of fair value can end up distorting its purpose, affecting both the quality of financial information and the sustainability of the accounting system. Consequently, adaptive approaches are required that consider the conditions of the productive environment, the nature of the asset, and the institutional capacities of each country or region.
6. Conclusions
6.1. Conclusions of the Study
The findings of this systematic review confirm that the valuation of biological assets has a significant impact on the quality of accounting information and, therefore, on strategic decision-making within the agricultural sector. The correct application of IAS 41, particularly through the use of fair value, improves information transparency when active markets exist, allowing a more accurate assessment of biological resources. However, the usefulness of this approach is limited in contexts where subjectivity, lack of market liquidity, and the complexity of assets make it difficult to reliably estimate value, which can lead to accounting distortions and even opportunistic behavior.
Throughout the analysis, it was evident that most empirical studies focus on developing countries with economies dependent on the primary sector, where the implementation of IAS 41 still faces institutional, technical, and cultural barriers. This geographical pattern reaffirms the need to adapt accounting models to specific production realities, promoting greater regulatory flexibility that allows the biological and socio-economic logic of the environment to be faithfully reflected. Likewise, a positive relationship was identified between information quality, stakeholder trust, and accounting performance, consolidating the strategic role of accounting as a management tool.
However, the review also identified important methodological divergences in the valuation of biological assets, both between countries and between companies, which affect the comparability of financial reports and weaken the uniformity desired by international standards. Accounting practices vary depending on factors such as the availability of data, the type of asset, the market structure, and the technical capacity of the accounting team, which highlights a gap between the standard and its practical applicability. These divergences must be addressed from a more critical perspective that considers not only the technical aspects but also the ethical, regulatory, and cultural aspects.
One of the main research gaps detected lies in the scant exploration of the effects of IAS 41 on micro and small agricultural enterprises, as well as on popular and solidarity economy organizations. Similarly, further analysis is required on the role of auditing and control mechanisms that guarantee the integrity of the reported values, especially in contexts of high volatility and biological risk. There is also little empirical evidence on how biological asset accounting influences environmental sustainability, climate risk management, or the transition to regenerative agriculture models.
In addition to the technical challenges in the application of IAS 41, there is still a significant disparity in the ability of organizations to interpret and adapt accounting criteria to the biological and economic conditions of each context. The methodological divergences observed between countries, regions, and types of producers show that regulatory standardization has not yet managed to resolve the tensions between the need for comparability and the heterogeneous reality of the agricultural sector. In this sense, accounting must evolve towards more interpretative and situated models, capable of representing not only the economic value but also the inherent risks, climate variability, and the uncertainty of biological cycles.
6.2. Limitations of the Study
Among the main limitations of this research is the limited availability of empirical studies documenting real cases of application of IAS 41 in specific agricultural contexts, which hinders a deeper understanding of its practical impact on organizations. Likewise, periods with limited academic production on the subject were identified, which generated temporary gaps in the systematization of knowledge. Added to this is the lack of research that directly addresses the cultural, social, and economic factors that characterize countries with agricultural economies, fundamental aspects to contextualize the application of the accounting standard in diverse rural environments. These limitations open the way for future studies that are more integrative and more anchored in the productive reality of the agricultural sectors.
6.3. Future Lines of Research
Within this framework, future lines of research could focus on the development of hybrid valuation models that combine financial, biological, and environmental elements, adjusted to different scales of production. In addition, it would be relevant to analyze the experiences of regulatory harmonization in regional blocks such as the European Union or Mercosur, as well as to investigate the role of emerging technologies—such as artificial intelligence or digital agriculture—in improving the accounting measurement and traceability of biological assets. Likewise, a greater focus on the professional and ethical training of agricultural accountants is required to strengthen their capacity for critical analysis in the face of the dilemmas posed by the application of regulations.
Finally, this study reaffirms the importance of promoting interdisciplinary and contextualized research on the valuation of biological assets, given its capacity to generate useful knowledge to improve accounting and financial transparency, information equity, and sustainability of the agricultural sector. Encouraging this type of analysis not only contributes to closing the existing gaps between accounting theory and its actual application but also promotes the construction of fairer, more effective, and adaptive regulatory frameworks. In a global context marked by climate change, food security, and pressure on natural resources, having robust and reliable accounting information becomes an essential element for the governance and competitiveness of agricultural production systems.
Conceptualization, methodology, software, validation, formal analysis, investigation, resources, data curation and writing—original draft preparation, P.C.-L., M.A.-P., C.T.-M. and C.B.-C.; writing—review and editing, visualization, supervision, project administration, P.C.-L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
This study is a literature review based on previously published research articles. The data supporting the findings of this work consist of secondary sources obtained from reputable scientific databases, including Elsevier and Web of Science (WoS). All sources cited in this review are publicly available through these academic platforms and can be accessed according to the subscription or institutional access rights of the respective users. No new data were generated or analyzed during the course of this study.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Figure 1 Keywords in articles related to (a) permanent crops and (b) forest accounting.
Figure 2 Keyword matching related to the set of biological assets.
Figure 3 PRISMA flow chart.* Scopus and Web of Science: key databases for PRISMA.
Figure 4 Concurrence of authors most cited on the subject.
Figure 5 Keyword concurrence.
Figure 6 Articles analyzed by year.
Figure 7 Analysis of the study by country.
Inclusion and exclusion.
| Inclusion Criteria | Exclusion Criteria |
|---|---|
| Articles published between 2010 and 2025 | Publications prior to 2010 |
| Peer-reviewed studies | Non-peer-reviewed documents (notes, technical bulletins, blog posts, etc.) |
| Publications indexed in Scopus or Web of Science (WoS) | Publications in journals without recognized indexing or without evidence of scientific review |
| Studies published in high-impact scientific journals (quartiles Q1, Q2, Q3, and Q4 preferred) | Studies published in low-impact journals (no assigned quartile) |
| Articles available in multiple languages or with official translation available | Articles without accessible translation |
| Research focused on the valuation of biological assets in accordance with IAS 41 | Studies focused on other types of assets (intangibles, machinery, financial, etc.) |
| Studies that analyze the financial-accounting impact, especially in relation to financial information and profitability in companies in the agricultural sector | Research without a financial or accounting focus or without an agribusiness relationship |
| Publications with an empirical or theoretical approach or systematic reviews with clearly defined methodology | Opinions, editorials, narrative essays, or other texts without methodological support |
| Articles with access to full text and sufficient data for analysis | Publications with restricted access or only available as a summary |
Analysis of empirical evidence.
| N° | Author(s) | Sector | Valuation Method | Relationship to IAS 41 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ( | Forestry | Fair value | Application in forest accounting, to combat challenges that affect the valuation of forest assets at fair value |
| 2 | ( | Agricultural | Fair Value and the Cost Model | Criticizes the application of the rule for lack of adjustment to sociocultural conditions |
| 3 | ( | Agricultural products | Fair value | Compares current practices with the proposed draft IAS 41 for carrier plants |
| 4 | ( | Agricultural production-agribusiness | Fair Value and the Cost Model | Analyzes the difficulties and controversies in the implementation of the standard in the agricultural sector |
| 5 | ( | Agricultural | Fair Value and the Cost Model | Partial application, depending on reliability |
| 6 | ( | Agricultural | Historical cost, discounted cash flow, and active market information | Flexible application according to data reliability |
| 7 | ( | Carrier plants | Fair value | Implications of carrier plants such as NIC 16 instead of NIC 41 |
| 8 | ( | Agricultural | Fair Value and the Cost Model | IFRS Alignment for SMEs |
| 9 | ( | Forestry | Fair value | Challenges in Slovakia with NIC 41 |
| 10 | ( | Plants and animals | Fair Value and the Cost Model | IAS 41 applied according to the purpose of the asset |
| 11 | ( | Agricultural | Fair Value and the Cost Model | Legislative Alignment Assessment |
| 12 | ( | Forest | Historical cost and fair value | Difficulties due to lack of active market |
| 13 | ( | Plants and animals | Fair value | Relationship between IAS 41 and transparency |
| 14 | ( | Apple trees | Fair value for costs of production and present value | Adaptation to specific crop |
| 15 | ( | Agricultural | Fair Value and Historical Cost | Assessment of disclosure under IAS 41 |
| 16 | ( | Agricultural | Historical cost model | Comparison with CAS5 standard |
| 17 | ( | Sugar cane | Fair value and judgment criteria | Impact on business decisions |
| 18 | ( | Long-cycle forestry (Forests) | Discounted cash flow and mixed methods | Posting of changes in net assets |
| 19 | ( | Agricultural | Fair Value and Historical Cost | NIC Disclosure Quality for SMBs |
| 20 | ( | Forestry (Wood) | CDF and Cost Approach | IFRS and IAS 41 support |
| 21 | ( | Agro-industrial | Discounted cash flow and historical cost | Degree of compliance with the standard in companies |
| 22 | ( | Banana | Fair value and costs of sale | Impact on pricing and accounting practices |
| 23 | ( | Plants and animals | Fair value | Influence on the perception of the cost of debt |
| 24 | ( | Agricultural and organic production | Fair Value and Historical Cost | Recommendation for improved reporting and disclosure of information on biological assets |
| 25 | ( | Agricultural | Discounted cash flow and historical cost | Use of CPC 29 (equivalent to IAS 41) |
| 26 | ( | Agricultural | Fair value of assets and cost models | Changes by revision 2016 |
| 27 | ( | Agricultural | Fair value and costs of sale | Comparison of dissemination quality |
| 28 | ( | Agricultural | Fair Value and Historical Cost | Influence of business characteristics |
| 29 | ( | Forest | Discounted cash flow | Application vs. local cost model |
| 30 | ( | Plants and animals | Fair value and costs of sale | Joint application IAS 41 and IAS 20 |
Acuña, E.; Pinto, A.; Cancino, J.; Sandoval, S. Fair value of standing timber in the context of IAS 41 implementation: A case study. Ciência Florestal; 2020; 30,
Alana, C.; Chacón, B.; Martins, V.; Ramos, D. Earnings management and disclosure level of CPC 29 biological asset and agricultural product: An analysis with Brazilian companies. Custos e Agronegócio; 2022; 18,
Al-mulla, M.; Bradbury, M. Auditor, client and investor consequences of the enhanced auditor’s report. International Journal of Auditing; 2022; 26,
Altarawneh, M. How company characteristics influence measurement practices and disclosure level prescribed within IAS 41. Journal of Risk and Financial Management; 2023; 16,
Arbidane, I.; Mietule, I. Problems and solutions of accounting and evaluation of biological assets in Latvia. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues; 2018; 6,
Arévalo, E.; Pulido, D.; Rangel, A. La amortización contable de los activos biológicos. Revista Finnova; 2018; 3,
Bispo, T.; Lopes, A. Exploring the value relevance of biological assets and bearer plants: An analysis with IAS 41 Revision. Custos e Agronegócio; 2022; 18,
Bohušová, H.; Svoboda, P. Will the amendments to the IAS 16 and IAS 41 influence the value of biological assets?; 2017; Available online: https://repozitar.mendelu.cz/xmlui/handle/20.500.12698/1302 (accessed on 20 February 2025).
Bozzolan, S.; Laghi, E.; Mattei, M. Amendments to the IAS 41 and IAS 16—Implications for accounting of bearer plants. Agricultural Economics (Zemědělská Ekonomika); 2016; 62,
Budrionytė, R.; Gaižauskas, L. Historical cost vs. fair value in forest accounting: The case of Lithuania. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues; 2018; 6,
Buyukarikan, U. Agricultural practices of apple and apple nursery production according to Turkish IAS 41 accounting standard in an agricultural enterprise. Custos e Agronegócio; 2019; 15,
Cavalheiro, R.; Gimenes, R.; Binotto, E.; Fietz, C. Fair value of biological assets: An interdisciplinary methodological proposal. Revista de Administração Contemporânea; 2019; 23,
Dékán, T.; Kiss, Á. Measurement of agricultural activities according to the international financial reporting standards. Procedia Economics and Finance; 2015; 32, pp. 777-783. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)01461-6]
Fernandes, E.; Fernandes, F.; Gonzaga, T. Biological assets mensuration and IAS 41 observance in South America. Custos e Agronegócio; 2016; 12,
Fiandrino, S.; di Trana, M.; Tonelli, A.; Lucchese, A. The multi-faceted dimensions for the disclosure quality of non-financial information in revising directive 2014/95/EU. Journal of Applied Accounting Research; 2022; 23,
Garcia, R.; Cano, A. Accounting treatments of biological assets and agricultural products; 2021; Available online: https://rid.unam.edu.ar/handle/20.500.12219/3566 (accessed on 20 February 2025).
García, V.; Bonilla-Jurado, D.; Villacís, R. Accounting procedure for fixed assets in the municipal government of Chimbo Canton, Bolivar Province. Revista de Investigación Sigma; 2023; 10,
Giertliová, B.; Dobšinská, Z.; Šulek, R. Comparison of the forest accounting system in Slovakia and IAS 41. Austrian Journal of Forest Science; 2017; 134, pp. 1-22. Available online: https://www.forestscience.at/content/dam/holz/forest-science/2017/heft1a/CB1701A_Article01.pdf (accessed on 20 February 2025).
Grege, E. Challenges in accounting the forests—A Latvian case study. Annals of Forest Research; 2010; 53,
Hernández, J.; Tolentino, H. Measurement and disclosure criteria for biological assets for Chilean and Peruvian companies. Cuadernos de Administración; 2024; 40,
Herrera, A.; Herrera, A.; Chávez, G. NIC 41 y su incidencia en el precio por caja de banano ecuatoriano, período 2019–2020. Universidad y Sociedad; 2021; 13,
Huffman, A. Asset use and the relevance of fair value measurement: Evidence from IAS 41. Review of Accounting Studies; 2018; 23,
Ika, S.; Farida, F.; Asih, S.; Okfitasari, A.; Widagdo, A. The impact of biological asset disclosures and economic sustainability on firm value: Evidence from agricultural companies in Indonesia. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science; 2024; 1297,
Jana, H.; Marta, S. The fair value model for the measurement of biological assets and agricultural produce in the Czech Republic. Procedia Economics and Finance; 2014; 12, pp. 213-220. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(14)00338-4]
Jeriji, M.; Nasfi, A. The value relevance of mandatory sustainability reporting assurance. South African Journal of Accounting Research Best Paper Prize; 2022; 37, pp. 122-138. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10291954.2022.2148887]
Jordão, F.; Menezes, R. Effect of the fair value of biological assets on the cost debt: An international study. Custos e Agronegócio; 2021; 17,
Killi, M.; Kefe, İ. Bibliometric network mapping of farm accounting studies using a comprehensive dataset. Data in Brief; 2024; 54, 110288. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2024.110288] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38962185]
Klychova, G.; Kulikova, L.; Mavlieva, L.; Klychova, A. Organization of Accounting in Fur Farming according to IAS. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences; 2014; 5,
Komoldinov, I. Analysis of current accounting practices and challenges in agricultural enterprises. Web of Humanities: Journal of Social Science and Humanitarian Research; 2024a; 2,
Komoldinov, I. Methodological steps for implementing international standards in agricultural accounting. Web of Humanities: Journal of Social Science and Humanitarian Research; 2024b; 2,
Kurniawan, R.; Mulawarman, A. D.; Kamayanti, A. Biological assets valuation reconstruction: A critical study of IAS 41 on agricultural accounting in Indonesian farmers. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences; 2014; 164, pp. 68-75. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.11.052]
Leitner, S.; Lehner, O. AI-powered information and Big Data: Current regulations and ways forward in IFRS reporting. Journal of Applied Accounting Research; 2023; 24,
López-Solís, O.; Luzuriaga-Jaramillo, A.; Bedoya-Jara, M.; Naranjo-Santamaría, J.; Bonilla-Jurado, D.; Acosta-Vargas, P. Effect of generative artificial intelligence on strategic decision-making in entrepreneurial business initiatives: A systematic literature review. Administrative Sciences; 2025; 15,
Maksymiv, Y.; Yakubiv, V.; Pylypiv, N.; Piatnychuk, I.; Hryhoruk, I.; Hokh, V. Biological assets in accounting of socially responsible activities of agricultural enterprises. Custos e Agronegócio; 2022; 18,
Mates, D.; Grosu, V.; Hlaciuc, E.; Bostan, I.; Bunget, O.; Domil, A.; Moraru, M.; Artene, A. Biological assets and the agricultural products in the context of the implementation of the IAS 41: A case study of the Romanian agro-food system. Archives of Biological Sciences; 2015; 67,
Menezes, R.; Ciampaglia, P. IAS 41 and biological assets in Brazil. Revista Catarinense Da Ciência Contábil; 2023; 22, e3365. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.16930/2237-766220233365]
Mirović, V.; Milenković, N.; Jakšić, D.; Mijié, K.; Andrašić, J.; Kalaš, B. Quality of biological assets disclosures of agricultural companies according to international accounting regulations. Custos e Agronegócio; 2019; 15,
Ociпчyк, Д.; Чижeвcькa, Л.; Пeтpишин, Л.; Пpиймaк, C.; Лoбoдa, H.; Aнтoщeнкoвa, B. Biдoбpaжehhя дepжabhиx гpahtib у зbithocti aгpoпiдпpиєmctb ЗA mcφз. Financial and Credit Activity Problems of Theory and Practice; 2024; 4,
Oreida, A. IAS 41 and its impact on the valuation of biological assets of companies dedicated to agricultural activity. Revista Frecosapiens; 2022; 5,
Paliuliené, L.; Knyviené, I. The impact of the choice of asset valuation techniques on the valuation of agricultural entities: A case study. Applied Research in Studies and Practice; 2024; 20,
Peštović, K.; Medved, I.; Rađo, D.; Jakšić, D.; Saković, D. The impact of accounting regulation basis to the mandatory biological assets reporting: Evidence from the Serbian agricultural production companies. Custos e Agronegócio; 2022; 18,
Pinzón, Y.; Suárez, B. Métodos de valoración de los activos biológicos aplicando la NIC 41 en las empresas bananeras, un análisis a la norma y su afectación en el cálculo del pago de impuesto a la renta; 2017; Available online: https://repositorio.uees.edu.ec/items/35f7dfac-dac1-4013-86db-03f4f3947949 (accessed on 20 February 2025).
Pires, A.; Lemos, S.; Lemos, D. Assessment of biological assets in agribusiness. Custos e Agronegócio; 2021; 17,
Queiroz, R.; Miranda, L.; Hideo, V.; Flores, E.; Martins, E. Analysis of the usefulness of fair value measurement of forest assets under the perspective of preparers of the financial statements. Custos e Agronegócio; 2020; 16,
Rabassi, R.; Batalha, M.; Albuquerque, A. Valuation of biological assets at fair value: Impacts on decision-making in agro-industrial companies. Custos e Agronegócio; 2020; 16,
Rezende, A.; da Silva, J.; Dalmácio, F.; Rodrigues, I. Relevância do valor justo em ativos biológicos: Uma análise experimental da percepção do mercado versus a percepção acadêmica. Organizações Rurais & Agroindustriais; 2022; 24, e1888.
Ríos, K.; Carvajal, H.; Prado, E.; Espinoza, M. Activos biológicos de una camaronera: NIC 41 y su aplicación en el ámbito contable tributario. Multidisciplinary Latin American Journal (MLAJ); 2024; 2,
Rojo, M.; Bonilla Jurado, D.; Masaquiza, C. The development of new products and their impact on production: Case Study. Universidad y Sociedad; 2018; 10,
Rosas, C.; Urbina, M.; Miranda, M.; Chapoñan, E.; Cubas, J. Glosario bilingüe contable; 2022; Available online: https://colloquiumbiblioteca.com/index.php/web/article/view/105 (accessed on 20 February 2025).
Sakovié, D.; Peštović, K.; Tica, T.; Rado, D. The impact of quality of biological assets and properties disclosures on agricultural company’s performance. Custos e Agronegócio; 2020; 20,
Suttipun, M. External auditor and KAMs reporting in alternative capital market of Thailand. Meditari Accountancy Research; 2021; 30,
Tanaka, G.; Castillo, C. Implementation of IAS 41 (Agriculture): The case of a Peruvian SME. Contabilidad y Negocios; 2023; 18,
van Biljon, M.; Wingard, C. An agricultural sector assessment of biological asset valuation challenges with inputs considered from valuers. International Journal of Financial, Accounting, and Management; 2020; 2,
Wegrzynska, M.; Nowotarska, A. Measuring and valuation of biological assets: A research study. European Research Studies Journal; 2021; 24,
Wen-hsin Hsu, A.; Liu, S.; Sami, S.; Wan, T. H. IAS 41 and stock price informativeness. Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting & Economics; 2019; 26,
Xie, B.; Liu, M.; Randhir, T.; Yi, Y.; Hu, X. Are the biological assets measured by historical cost value-related?. Custos e Agronegócio; 2020; 16,
Zlati, M.; Mirica, C. Biological assets accounting in the agricultural sector. European Journal of Accounting, Finance & Business; 2021; 9,
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Arias-Pérez, Mauricio; Toscano-Morales, Cecilia
; Barreno-Córdova, Carlos