Practitioners’ views on intellectual capital and sustainability. From a performance-based to a worth-based perspective
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-02-2017-0033 |
| Pages | 367-386 |
| Date | 12 March 2018 |
| Published date | 12 March 2018 |
| Author | Maurizio Massaro,John Dumay,Andrea Garlatti,Francesca Dal Mas |
| Subject Matter | Information & knowledge management,Knowledge management,HR & organizational behaviour,Organizational structure/dynamics,Accounting & Finance,Accounting/accountancy,Behavioural accounting |
Practitioners’views on intellectual
capital and sustainability
From a performance-based to a
worth-based perspective
Maurizio Massaro
Department of Statistics and Economic Sciences, Udine University,
Udine, Italy
John Dumay
Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia, and
Andrea Garlatti and Francesca Dal Mas
Udine University, Udine, Italy
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to investigate the relationship between intellectual capital (IC) and
sustainability using practitioners’perspectives and by developing an analysis of comments and practices
published in 1,651 blog posts in one of the leading sources of sustainability research: CSRwire.com.
Design/methodology/approach –A total of 1,651 posts, containing more than1.5 million words, published
by experts in the field of sustainability are analysed using Leximancer and content analysis.
Findings –The results reveal IC and sustainability to be complex topics under active discussion by
practitioners, and several links to the IC literature are identified and compared. The findings focus on the
managerial practices applied by leading companies, as discussed by practitioners, that show IC and
sustainability influence each other in answering a plurality of demands or logics.
Research limitations/implications –First, the authors identify the need to study the managerial
practices proposed by practitioners, rather than their company reports. Second, the authors propose
developing a trading zone for IC researchers and practitioners. Third, the authors reflect on the role of new
communication tools, such as integrated reporting, to connect IC and sustainability. Finally, the authors
conclude that the relationship between IC and sustainability could benefit from a fifth stage of IC research
that considers justifications of the worth of IC and sustainability practices.
Originality/value –The paper is novel because it addresses concerns about the relationship between IC and
sustainability by examining messages posted by practitioners, rather than examining company disclosures.
This leads to an understanding of the impact of practices rather than the desires motivating practice.
The results support the view that it is time to remove the boundaries of IC research and work towards
reconciling the worth of IC to different people in different contexts. The authors argue that practitioners
require scholars to reduce the ambiguity between IC and its expected results. This would open the door to a
potentially productive way of understanding IC and the complexity of economic, social, and environmental
value. In short, researchers should change their research questions from, “What is IC worth to investors,
customers, society, and the environment?”to “Is managing IC a worthwhile endeavour?”
Keywords Performance, Sustainable development, Practitioners, Intellectual capital, Worth,
Fifth-stage intellectual capital
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Intellectual capital (IC) is evolving and growing in both the number of papers publishe d
and the number of scholars researching it (Guthrie et al., 2012). A keyword search of the
word “intellectual capital”using the Scopus[1] database for the period 1995-2015 reveals a
growing trend in IC research, with the total number of papers published per year
increasing by 26 per cent over the last three years. While interest in IC is growing, critical
IC research is also emerging that calls for a deeper understanding of how IC works
(Dumay and Garanina, 2013, p. 11). These calls advocate a broader approach to creating
Journal of Intellectual Capital
Vol. 19 No. 2, 2018
pp. 367-386
© Emerald PublishingLimited
1469-1930
DOI 10.1108/JIC-02-2017-0033
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1469-1930.htm
367
Practitioners’
views on
IC and
sustainability
value that includes social and environmental values (Dumay et al., 2017). This paper
provides new insights and critiques by investigating the relationship between IC and
sustainability in practice.
To analyse IC and sustainability practices, we performeda content analysis of 1,651 blog
posts containingover 1.5 million words posted on a leading sustainability blog: CSRwire.com
(Griffin and Sun, 2013, p. 94). Our analysis identifies the sustainability practices used by
leading companiesand reveals that IC and sustainability are complextopics. When compared
to the academic literature, we find evidence of some practiceunderstandings common to both
real life andacademic theory; however, we alsofind evidence of a divide betweenthe espoused
academic and practical perspectives of the relationship between IC and sustainability.
The practices that depart from academic theory are identified, as they provide opportunities
for further theoretical investigation.
The paper is novel because it identifies a gap between IC and sustainability practice
and theory. By focussing on the messages posted by practitioners and the theories posed
by academics, we critically analyse how IC is developing in the wider ecosystem of its
fourth stage of research to create a new understanding of th e relationship between IC and
sustainability practice. In our critique, we identify three implications. First, we identify a
need to study the managerial practices proposed by practitioners, rather than company
reports that express their desires. Second, we propose developing a trading zone for IC
researchers and practitioners. Third, we reflect on the role of new communication tools,
such as integrated reporting, as a way of connecting IC and sustainability. Finally, we
conclude that the relationship between IC and sustainability could benefit from a fifth
stage of IC research in which justifications for the worth of IC and sustainability practices
are considered.
In the remainder of this the paper, Section 2 outlines the literature review and draws out
the research questions. Section 3 describes the methodology used. Our findings are
presented in Section 4. Section 5 presents a critique, and the concluding section outlines the
need to consider different views on the worth of IC and sustainability practices, along with a
discussion on how our findings support a proposed fifth stage of IC research.
2. Literature review
IC research has evolved over recent years, progressively changing its focus (Chiucchi and
Dumay, 2015) as it moves through different stages (Guthrie et al., 2012). In the first stage of
research, between the 1980s and 1990s, a commonly accepted set of IC terminology was
developed. IC research concentrated on creating a common understanding of the potential of
IC for making and managing a company’s competitive advantage (Guthrie et al., 2012).
The second stage of research arose in the new millennium when the problems of measuring,
managing, and reporting IC were approached (Dumay and Garanina, 2013). These efforts
were oriented towards gathering empirical evidence to deepen the potential role of IC in the
value creation process (Guthrie et al., 2012). In short, the first two stages of research
generally focussed on understanding the concept of IC and its implications for the value
creation process. The third stage saw the development of studies that critically examine IC
in practice; most focussed on managerial implications (Dumay and Garanina, 2013).
According to Dumay and Garanina (2013), this stage expanded the construct of value by
incorporating other dimensions, such as the worth and importance of products and services
to customers. The fourth stage of IC research emerged with the aim of extending IC’s
boundaries into a wider ecosystem (Secundo et al., 2016), including nations (Käpylä et al.,
2012), cities (Dameri and Ricciardi, 2015), and communities (Bounfour and Edvinsson, 2005).
Therefore, while studies that critically examine IC in practice characterised the third stage of
research, the fourth stage is extending the concept of value within and beyond the
boundaries of the company.
368
JIC
19,2
To continue reading
Request your trial