Intellectual capital and performance. Taxonomy of components and multi-dimensional analysis axes
| Date | 12 March 2018 |
| Published date | 12 March 2018 |
| Pages | 407-452 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-11-2016-0118 |
| Author | Eugénia Pedro,João Leitão,Helena Alves |
| Subject Matter | Information & knowledge management,Knowledge management,HR & organizational behaviour,Organizational structure/dynamics,Accounting & Finance,Accounting/accountancy,Behavioural accounting |
Intellectual capital and
performance
Taxonomy of components and
multi-dimensional analysis axes
Eugénia Pedro, João Leitão and Helena Alves
Department of Management and Economics,
University of Beira Interior, Covilha, Portugal
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to determine the predominant classification of intellectual capital (IC),
in terms of components, using the literature of reference on the relationship between IC and performance and
considering multi-dimensional analysis axes (MAAs): organisational, regional and national.
Design/methodology/approach –A systematic literature review (SLR) is presented focussing on empirical
studies on IC published in the period 1960-2016. A protocol for action is defined and a research question is raised,
gathering data from the databases of: Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar. A social network analysis is also
provided to determine the type of networks embracing groups, IC individual components and performance type.
Findings –Of the 777 papers included in the SLR, 189 deal with the relationship between IC and
performance. The paper highlights the greater development of empirical studies starting from 2004; the
organisational MAA is the most studied. The most frequently used groups of components in studies dealing
with IC’s influence on performance corresponds to a triad of human capital; structural (organisational or
process) capital; and relational (social or customer) capital, which determine positively the performance of
organisations/regions/countries, but their influence is not linear and depends on various factors associated
with the context and surrounding environment.
Practical implications –This study has wide-ranging implications for politicians/governments, managers
and academics, providing empirical evidence about the relationships between the components of IC and
performance, by MAAs, and a global vision and better understanding of how those IC components have
developed and how they are related to performance.
Originality/value –Due to the high number of references covering a wide range of disciplines and the various
dimensions(e.g. organisational, regionaland national) thatform IC, it becomes fundamental to carryout an SRL
and systematise its MAAs to deepen knowledge about what has been discovered/developed in this domain, in
terms of empirical studies, in order to situate the topic in a wider theoretical-practical context. The paper is
exceptionally wide-ranging,covering the period1960-2016.It is one of the first clarifying studieson systemisation
of the literature on IC, by MAA, and an in-depth study of IC’s impact on the performance o f organisations/regions
and countries which may serve as a guideline for future studies using the taxonomy proposed.
Keywords Performance, Intellectual capital, Intangible assets, Systematic review
Paper type Literature review
Introduction
The OECD (2015) recently underlined the importance of intellectual capital (IC), stating that
in OECD countries, investment has gradually moved away from traditional areas of
investment in physical assets, placing the emphasis on intangible assets. In addition, the
relative resilience of investment in intangible assets at times of crisis could be a sign that
these assets are cyclically less sensitive than investment in physical assets or benefit more
from government actions in the early stages of a crisis.
According to the OECD (2011, 2013, 2016), investment in intangible assets has been
responsible for labour productivity growth in developed economies, such as the USA, Japan
and the European Union. The same organisation further states that the World Bank
estimates that the predominant form of wealth for the majority of these countries is based on
IC. The European Commission (2012) has also attributed some importance to the question of
IC, especially concerning the intensification of innovation policies (Matos, 2013).
Journal of Intellectual Capital
Vol. 19 No. 2, 2018
pp. 407-452
© Emerald PublishingLimited
1469-1930
DOI 10.1108/JIC-11-2016-0118
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1469-1930.htm
407
IC and
performance
Authors like Wu (2005) and Kristandl and Bontis (2007) refer that the first recorded
mentioning of intangibles can be found in 1896 by Lawrence R. Dicksee. Although the term
IC was used in pioneering terms by John Kenneth Galbraith in 1969 (Bontis, 1998), its major
development started in 1991 by Tom Stewart who significantly popularisatised the concept
with the article “Brain Power: How Intellectual Capital Is Becoming America’s Most
Valuable Asset”(Serenko and Bontis, 2004).
The subject of IC has produced a vast literature covering a great diversity of disciplines,
where the term “intangibles”is oftenused as a synonym of IC (OECD, 1999; Pettyand Guthrie,
2000; Alcaniz et al., 2011). However, some of the definitions found (e.g. Brooking, 1996; Roos
and Roos, 1997; Sveiby, 1997a, b; OECD, 1999, 2000) make an appropriate distinction by
locating IC as a subsetof, rather than the same as, a business’s overall intangible asset base
(Petty and Guthrie, 2000). From these definitions, and succinctly, it is proposed that IC is
formed of intangibleassets, also called intangibleresources, intellectualresources or resources
and capacities based on knowledge, among others, which, combined with tangible capital,
contribute to producing value added for organisations/regions/nations.
It is widely accepted that IC is a lever for generating value added and improved
performance in organisations (Marr et al., 2004), and the latter are expected to pay
increasing attention to efficient management of its forms of capital (Martí, 2007). Most of the
literature on the theory of IC published in the 1990s and 2000s accompanies the structures,
constructions and measures resulting from an accounting and financial perspective,
focussing especially on the organisational MAA (Bontis et al., 1999; Bontis, 1999;
Bontis et al., 2000). However, recently, this conceptual level has been extrapolated to include
also countries (Bontis, 2004). Malhotra (2001) argues that the leaders of national economies
try to find reliable ways to measure knowledge assets, for better understanding of how these
relate to future performance. So in terms of the MAAs guiding this study, besides
organisational IC (OIC), consideration should also be given to national IC (NIC), now widely
recognised as a source of competitiveness and productivity for a country (Užienė, 2014), and
regional IC (RIC), which also contributes to the growth and development not only of the
region but also of the country (Nitkiewicz et al., 2014).
The World Bank and other global organisations recognise investment in IC as a crucial
factor in determining economic growth, job creation and quality of life (World Bank, 2013;
Užienė, 2014). NIC implies articulation of a system of variables that helps to identify and
manage a country’s invisible wealth, serving as the root to feed and cultivate future
well-being (Bontis, 2004). Many researchers who measure NIC (Bontis, 2004; Bounfour and
Edvinsson, 2005; Lin and Edvinsson, 2008, 2011; Ståhle et al., 2015; Ştefănescu-Mihăilă,
2015) recognise the need to assess this type of resource base, and fundamental
methodological orientations are beginning to emerge in this field (Užienė, 2014; Gogan, 2014;
Mačerinskienėand Aleknavičiūtė, 2015). One of those orientations stands out by identifying
and classifying IC and its components also in the MAAs referring to the region (Nitkiewicz
et al., 2014). So RIC is considered as a region’s capacity to create wealth and intangible assets
(Cabrita et al., 2015). In addition, Nitkiewicz et al. (2014) state that regions’growth potential
is based to a large extent on intangible assets and unique infrastructure; and Marcin (2013)
highlights that countries and regions’potential development is based mainly on intangible
resources and on their hidden capacities.
Lerro and Carlucci(2007) state that organisations, regions and countries generate different
value added, with different rates of success. To explain why some organisations/regions/
countries are moresuccessful than others, or, in otherwords, create greater value added, itis
necessary to deepenknowledge of how IC influences theirperformance. A growing amount of
literaturedeals with the relationship betweenIC and the performance of firms (e.g.Pucci et al.,
2015; Aramburuet al., 2015; Nimtrakoon, 2015),regions (e.g. Dettori et al.,2012; Lönnqvist and
Laihonen, 2013 and countries (e.g. Seleim and Bontis, 2008; Piekkola, 2011).
408
JIC
19,2
Therefore, for a better understanding of the IC concept, whatever the axis of analysis, it
is necessary to identify the studies carried out since its beginning, and understand at what
point these studies began to focus on IC’s influence on the performance of organisations/
regions/countries, as well as determining the type of performance that is most studied and
the main conclusions obtained in these studies.
For clarification purposes, in this study, multi-dimensional analysis axes (MAAs) of IC
are understood at the different levels of organisation, region and country, while the
components of IC are understood as the classification forms of capital that can be measured
(e.g. human capital, structural capital, relational capital, among others).
Considering the above, it is first necessary to systematise the existing literature, aiming
to clarify the evolution of the IC concept, in terms of its MAAs and its components, since the
majority of recent studies, including bibliometric analyses, meta-analyses, systematic
literature reviews (SLRs) or content analysis of IC, deal mostly with the organisational MAA
(Marr et al., 2004; Guthrie et al., 2012; Dumay and Garanina, 2012, 2013; Dumay and Cai,
2014; Ferenhof et al., 2015), leaving a gap concerning countries and regions. Second, it is
necessary to understand the point from which these studies began to investigate IC’s
influence on the performance of organisations/regions/countries.
Bearing in mind the statements presented above, the following research question
is formulated:
RQ1. What is the predominant classification of IC, in terms of components, in the
literature of reference on the relationship between IC and perfomance by MAA?
Therefore, the aim of this study is twofold: to assess the evolution of studies on IC and its
application regarding MAAs: organisational, regional and national; and (to determine the
predominant classification of IC, in terms of components, in analysing the relationship
between IC and performance of organisations/regions/countries.
To review, synthesise and classify existing research on IC, the following sections present
a succinct approach to IC. The importance of OIC, RIC and NIC in determining the
performance of organisations/regions/countries is analysed, followed by a SLR with regard
to IC, identifying the principal empirical studies dealing with the three MAAs in order to fill
the gap detected in the literature, given the non-existence of a study clarifying this topic.
The models developed to measure and classify the type of IC applicable are identified. Next,
to answer RQ1, the articles dealing with IC’s influence on the performance of organisations/
regions/countries are systematised and the types of study made are analysed (considering
the sector and typology of performance), regarding the three MAAs. The components or
groups of IC’s components most commonly used are presented, identifying those that
contribute most to strengthening the performance of organisations/regions/countries.
Finally, the conclusions, limitations and future lines of research are presented.
Originality is ensured by the non-existence of previous clarifying studies about
systematisation of the literature on IC, by MAA, and an in-depth study of IC’s impact on the
performance of organisations/regions/nations, which may serve as a guideline for future
research using the taxonomy proposed, based on the division, systematisation and
classification of articles in terms of the three axes identified.
IC: dimensions of analysis
The appearance of new MAAs of IC is intrinsically linked with the advance of research on
different units of analysis considering multiple dimensions, namely, in dividual,
organisation, urban space, region (Užienė, 2013) and nation (Užienė, 2014; Gogan, 2014;
Mačerinskienėand Aleknavičiūtė, 2015).
As mentioned by Hervas-Oliver and Dalmau-Porta (2007), the results obtained in the
different dimensions do not always coincide regarding the importance attributed to each of
409
IC and
performance
To continue reading
Request your trial