Structured literature review about intellectual capital and innovation
| Date | 10 April 2017 |
| Pages | 262-285 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-07-2016-0069 |
| Published date | 10 April 2017 |
| Author | Marta Buenechea-Elberdin |
| Subject Matter | Information & knowledge management,Knowledge management,HR & organizational behaviour,Organizational structure/dynamics,Accounting & Finance,Accounting/accountancy,Behavioural accounting |
Structured literature review about
intellectual capital and innovation
Marta Buenechea-Elberdin
Deusto Business School, University of Deusto, Donostia-San Sebastián, Spain and
School of Business and Management, Lappeenranta University of Technology,
Lappeenranta, Finland
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to review and critique the literature dealing with the relationship
between intellectual capital (IC) and innovation, and to outline the future of this research field.
Design/methodology/approach –Structured literature review (SLR).
Findings –The relationship between IC and innovation has been examined in great detail; however, much
remains to be understood regarding the way of approaching and conceptualising both IC and innovation
according to the current business environment. Moreover, academic literature on the IC-innovation relationship
shows a disconnection between academia, and both business practice and policy-making, in this research domain.
Research limitations/implications –Since the study was developed by one person, the results could be
influenced by her subjective interpretation. In addition, only journal articles published between 2006 and 2015
have been examined.
Originality/value –This paper contributes to IC literature by providing a unique SLR of the IC-innovation
field of research. The paper points to pathways for future research in the IC-innovation domain.
Keywords Innovation, Intellectual capital, Structured literature review
Paper type Literature review
Introduction
Continuous innovation has become a key requirement for organisational viability in the
present environment characterised by fierce competition and increasing globalisation
(Chen et al., 2010; Kianto, 2011). As Sáenz and Aramburu (2011, p. 87) point out, innovation
“is a matter of survival in a free market economy”and therefore, the creation of something
new (i.e. innovation) is no longer an optional choice but a necessity facing all organisations
alike. Accordingly, finding ways to maintain the requisite level of renewal and developing
capabilities for being more creative and innovative have become imperatives for firms.
Intellectual capital (IC), the set of intangible assets that the firm owns or has access to
(Edvinsson and Malone, 1997) has been at the forefront of a wide range of studies in the
management field. Embedded within the resource-based view of the firm (Wernerfelt, 1984;
Barney, 1991), building strong intangibles provides companies with opportunities for
improving business performance (Mention and Bontis, 2013),gaining competitive advantage
(Chahal and Bakshi, 2015) and innovating (Wu et al., 2007; Leitner,2011). Traditionally, IC has
been split into three components: human capital (HC) or employees’knowledge, skills and
experience (Schultz, 1961; Subramaniam and Youndt, 2005); structural capital (SC) or firms’
codified knowledge, databases and culture (Bontis, 1996; Menor et al., 2007); and relational
capital (RC) or the knowledge embodied in thenetworks of internal and external relationships
the company manages (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998; Hsu and Fang, 2009; Bontis, 1998;
Subramaniam and Youndt, 2005).
The existing literature has repeatedly demonstrated the connection between IC
and innovation (Subram aniam and Youndt, 2005; Wu et al., 2007; Hsu and Fang, 2009;
Journal of Intellectual Capital
Vol. 18 No. 2, 2017
pp. 262-285
© Emerald PublishingLimited
1469-1930
DOI 10.1108/JIC-07-2016-0069
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1469-1930.htm
The author would like to show her gratitude to John Dumay for sharing his pearls of wisdom with the
author during the course of this research. The author is also immensely grateful to Josune Sáenz and
Aino Kianto for their support during the development of this article.
262
JIC
18,2
Leitner, 2011). However, the sheer amount of the existing studies as well the varying
methodologicalchoices and approaches taken by different authors to bothIC and innovation,
beg the question of where the IC-innovation research field currently stands as a whole.
As innovationis essential for company survival, gaining a deep and holisticunderstanding of
how this field of research has evolved so far and where it should go from here is of utmost
importance.Comprehending what is knownabout the IC-innovation relationship is significant
for both academics, aiming to grasp potential research opportunities, and managers, looking
for insights into how to reinforce innovation in their organisations.
To provide an overall appreciation of the development of a research field, a thorough
review of the existing literature is needed. However, there are not previous structured
literature reviews (SLR) examining how the relationship between IC and innovation has
been studied. Some reviews focus solely on IC, excluding the impact IC could exert on
innovation (Dumay et al., 2015; Ferenhof et al., 2015). Other studies consider the influence of
IC on organisational performance in general; however, they do not specifically concentrate
on innovation as the dependent variable (Moustaghfir, 2009; Inkinen, 2015).
Consequently, this research aims to present a review and critique of the articles addressing
the IC-innovation relationship published from 2006 to 2015, and to suggest future research lines.
The choice of examining papers published in 2006 or later was made because the research on
IC-innovation linkage took a noteworthy turn in 2005 with the appearance of a seminal article in
the Academy of Management Journal by Subramaniam and Youndt “The influence of
intellectual capital on the types of innovative capabilities”. This paper is one of the most quoted
articles on the research field, and at the time of writing this paper (19 December 2016) has been
referenced 2017 times in Google Scholar publications.
The research questions posed are the following:
RQ1. How is research for inquiring into the IC-innovation relationship developing?
RQ2. What is the focus of the IC-innovation relationship literature?
RQ3. What is the future for the IC-innovation relationship literature?
The rest of the paper continues as follows: the next section explains the methodology used,
which takes the form of an SLR (Massaro et al., 2016). After that, the paper presents the findings,
which are based on the insights and critique of the literature analysed. Then, the paper offers a
discussion of the results obtained which provides answer to the third research question posed.
Finally, limitations, implications and future research opportunities are presented.
Research method
This study follows the SLR method (Massaro et al., 2016), which “complements traditional
literature reviews because the approach helps to yield different outcomes that are
defensible”(p. 769). In addition, “SLRs are attractive to researchers because they offer a
history, some critique and outline the future research potential of particular domains”
(p. 795). Hence, an SLR is the most appropriate methodology to conduct a reliable analysis of
the literature linking IC and innovation, as well as to present a fair critique of this literature
and to outline future research directions.
Following the SLR methodology, a review protocol was created to document the
procedure followed. According to the purpose of the SLR, which is to present a
comprehensive review of the articles addressing the IC-innovation relationship published
from 2006 to 2015, the population to be studied included articles that were:
•empirical, because IC research should never be disconnected from practice (Petty and
Guthrie, 2000) and because empirical papers analysing one or several companies are
the most suitable for developing a better understanding of business practice;
263
SLR about IC
and innovation
To continue reading
Request your trial