Intellectual capital reporting in Spain: a comparative view
| Published date | 01 March 2003 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/14691930310455397 |
| Pages | 61-81 |
| Date | 01 March 2003 |
| Author | Patricia Ordóñez de Pablos |
| Subject Matter | Accounting & finance,HR & organizational behaviour,Information & knowledge management |
Intellectual capital reporting in
Spain: a comparative view
Patricia Ordo
´n
˜ez de Pablos
Faculty of Economics, Department of Business Administration and
Accountability, University of Oviedo, Oviedo-Asturias, Spain
Keywords Intellectual capital, Reports, Resources, Knowledge management, Spain
Abstract In the knowledge economy, caracterized by complex and dynamic competitive
environments, knowledge-based resources represent the true source of sustained competitive
advantage for the firm. However, most of these intangible resources are not reported on the
traditional annual report. As “what is measured is managed”, firms increasingly need to measure
and report these resources. Thus, the intellectual capital report offers a holistic view of the
organization’s roots of value. There are three main parts to this paper. First, the growing
importance of organizational knowledge-based resources is addressed. Second, a concise review of
the most significant on intellectual capital is summarized. Third, an image is shown of what
Spanish firms are doing in terms of knowledge management and intellectual capital measuring
and reporting. This situation is compared with intellectual capital reports of firms from Asia, the
Middle East and other European countries.
Introduction
First we will analyze the main strategic implications from the resource-based
view (RBV) of the firm. This theory explains how and why firms achieve a
sustained competitive advantage. The underlying idea is considering a firm as
an accumulation of unique resources with diverse nature (Barney, 1991;
Peteraf, 1993; Wernerfelt, 1984).
Organizational resources have been defined as diverse nature resources that
prepare firms to conceive and implement strategies which improve their
efficacy and efficiency, thus generating an increase in their competitiveness
(Amit and Schoemaker, 1993; Grant, 1991, 1996; Schoemaker and Amit, 1994).
Aaker (1989) states that the route to achieve a sustained competitive advantage
is an active and skill management process, comprising the following phases:
(1) identification of these actives and skills that are strategically relevant;
(2) selection of those that are important for the future needs of the market;
and
(3) implementation of programs which will develop, enhance and/or protect
these resources.
Itami and Roehl (1987) consider that a central element of strategy is the
management of invisible assets (know-how, reputation, etc.). They suggest that
every turn of the business cycle should add value to the know-how base of the
firm in the areas of core competences. This leads to the view that an
organization needs to make strategic decisions regarding which know-how
areas it wishes to enhance (Hall, 1992).
The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister http://www.emeraldinsight.com/1469-1930.htm
Intellectual
capital reporting
in Spain
61
Journal of Intellectual Capital
Vol. 4 No. 1, 2003
pp. 61-81
qMCB UP Limited
1469-1930
DOI 10.1108/14691930310455397
Owing to the importance of having, identifying and exploiting strategic
resources in order to develop a strategy that allows competing on this base of
resources, firms are really interested in identifying, knowing and analyzing
their resources and capacities in order to uncover those that are considered
superior or distinctive.
In the knowledge economy, knowledge has become the strategic resource for
firms competing in dynamic environments. Organizational knowledge can be
analyzed in two forms: static and dynamic. The intellectual capital research
field represents the static approach towards organizational knowledge.
Knowledge management represents the dynamic analysis of organizational
knowledge. Both approaches are complementary and contribute to the building
of a holistic view of the firm.
Knowledge management
Knowledge management is a fast-moving field that has been created by the
collision of several others – human resources, organizational development,
change management, information technology, brand and reputation
management, performance measurement and valuation (Bueno, 2002;
Bukowitz and Williams, 2000; Ordo
´n
˜ez de Pablos, 2002).
Knowledge management is the process of capturing firm’s knowledge and
using it to foster innovation through a spiral of organizational learning
(Nonaka, 1991, 1994; Nonaka and Reinmoller, 2000; Nonaka and Takeuchi,
1995; Ordo
´n
˜ez de Pablos, 2000, 2001a; Von Krogh and Grand, 1999; Wiig, 1993,
1995, 2000). Organizational knowledge creation may be defined as a process
across two major dimensions: ontological dimension and epistemological
dimension. The first dimension involves learning at individual, group and
organizational level. The second dimension considers there are two types of
knowledge: explicit and tacit knowledge (Polanyi, 1966).
Starting at individual level the spiral of knowledgecreation moves up toward
the group and organizational leveland at the same time the process of conversion
from tacit to explicit knowledge and vice versa occurs. The mobilized tacit
knowledge is “organizationally” amplified through these modes of knowledge
conversion and finally crystallized at higher ontological levels. Several
knowledge conversion modes occur in the spiral of organizational knowledge
creation: combination, socialization, externalization and internalization. This
conversion involves explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge (Polanyi, 1966).
All these issues related to knowledge management and organizational
learning should be integrated into the organizational knowledge strategy if
organizations are really serious about sustaining their competitive advantage.
So far knowledge management has gone at least through three phases. As
Sveiby (2000) states the first phase was from around 1985 to 1990. In it,
researchers took their inspiration from philosophers such as Wittgenstein and
Polanyi and they explored the value created by leveraging the competence and
JIC
4,1
62
To continue reading
Request your trial