IC 21: reflections from 21 years of IC practice and theory
| Published date | 11 January 2013 |
| Pages | 163-172 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/14691931311289075 |
| Date | 11 January 2013 |
| Author | Leif Edvinsson |
| Subject Matter | Accounting & finance,HR & organizational behaviour,Information & knowledge management |
IC 21: reflections from 21 years
of IC practice and theory
Leif Edvinsson
School of Economics, Lund University, Lund, Sweden,
Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering,
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong SAR,
and New Club of Paris, Paris, France
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to reflect on 21 years of IC theory and practice as input into
discussing the origins of IC, its multiple perspectives and where it is heading.
Design/methodology/approach – This article is based on the author’s reflections of the past and
vision for the future.
Findings – IC is still for many an invisible fuzzy dimension, or mainly a measuring and accounting
issue. For others, it is thought of as a more and more strategic ecosystem for sustainable value
creation. Is there a kind of learned blindness in financial capital accounting or ignorance of new
value opportunity spaces? We need to go beyond IC reporting. We are on the edge of something,
but what?
Originality/value – The paper presents the personal views of an internationally renowned IC
academic and practitioner about what the future may hold for IC.
Keywords IC as third dimension, IC metrics, Intellectual capital statement, National IC, IC 21,
Societal innovation, Innovation, Intellectual capital
Paper type Viewp oint
Introduction
What did Steve Jobs actually do in Apple? He managed its Intellectual Capital [y] How?
For Steve Jobs managing the intellectual capital involved the capability to give proper
direction to the knowledge assimilated in the organisation in order to generate innovative
ideas and develop them (B. Prasad, in International Business, 6 October 2011).
Today we see the remarkable stock market value appreciation of the enterprise
Apple. In August 2012, it had become the most valuable company in history with a
stock market value of over 600 billion USD[1], many times more than Nokia, the
previous market leader. What is Apple’s innovative business recipe? Is it sustainable?
This and other IC cases worth observing are Angry Birds from Rovio in Finland,
Facebook and Google from the USA and Skype and Spotify from Sweden. How did
these organisations use IC to create value?
I am writing this in the south of France, close to the small village Tautavel, in the
Roussillon region. Nearby is the cave, Arago, where the oldest archaeological remains
in Europe, homo erectus tautavelensis, were discovered, which date back 450,000 years.
Arago 21 is the name given to the most important discovery, the cranium of our
ancestors. It made me think of the word “capital”, from the Latin word for “head”
and how this brings us to the term “intellectual capital” (IC) and what it means.
One possible definition is that IC is derived insights about head value, future
earnings capabilities, based on human capital, as well as organisational, structural
and relational capital. Is it an asset, liability or something else? How does IC work and
what is its impact?
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1469-1930.htm
Journal of Intellectual Capital
Vol.14 No. 1, 2013
pp. 163-172
rEmeraldGroup PublishingLimited
1469-1930
DOI 10.1108/14691931311289075
163
21 years of
IC practice
and theory
To continue reading
Request your trial