Structure of intellectual capital – an international comparison

Abstract

Purpose Academics and practitioners around the world have shown interest in what constitutes the relevant intellectual capital (IC) in firms. However, studies have largely neglected to examine whether IC has identical or different structural elements in various parts of the world. The purpose of this paper is to suggest that country-specific institutional structures may impact the perception of IC, and empirically analyse whether differences exist between five countries drawing on the institutional theory. Design/methodology/approach This study tests for the differences in the underlying categorizations of IC in a sample consisting of 708 firms across five countries. Confirmatory factor analysis and comparison of different possible IC models are conducted to empirically examine the IC structure. Findings The results demonstrate that IC has predominantly the same underlying elements across the examined countries. However, trust capital in Finland and renewal capital in Serbia are structurally different compared to other countries. Research limitations/implications Institutional theory and multinational corporate superculture can explain the similarity in the IC structures across countries. Specifically, globalized markets carry institutionalized rules, norms, and expectations for the participating firms; under the influence of this superculture, the firms begin to assimilate. Conversely, the differences suggest that some country- and culture-specific differences remain even during the transition to global markets. Originality/value This study is among the first to question the assumption that IC has identical structural elements across the world, and merges theories of IC and institutions to explain the possible origins of these differences.

Technological intensity as a moderating variable for the intellectual capital–performance relationship

“…The production of ambiguous results can be due to the IC contributions' differing by sector, industry, typology, firm size, and by knowledge management practices (Bontis et al, ; Chuang, Chen, & Chuang, ; Inkinen, Kianto, Vanhala, & Ritala, ; Kianto et al, ). In fact, there are elements such as the reference context (social, environmental, cultural, and economic), the sector of activities and differences in the technology intensity that can influence and/or moderate the efficient and effective management of intangible assets on the processes of value creation (Reed, Lubatkin, & Srinivasan, ).…”

The Role of Multidimensional Intellectual Capital and Organizational Learning Practices in Innovation Performance

“…This is a consequence of the existence of two separate streams of literature about knowledge, and the conceptual and empirical ambiguity caused by this separation (Kianto et al, 2014). While IC literature examines the certain type of knowledge as a stock, or "capital" in a given point of time (Edvinsson and Malone, 1997;Inkinen, 2015;Inkinen et al, 2017), KM literature concentrates on the knowledge-related processes and practices to manage and control knowledge-based resources (Heisig, 2009;Inkinen et al, 2015;Hussinki et al, 2017). These two streams of literature reflect "static" and "dynamic" interpretations of knowledge (Kianto et al, 2014), knowledge-based resources (Brooking, 1996;Stewart, 1997) and knowledge-based capabilities (Teece et al, 1997;Teece, 2007), "know-that" (declarative knowledge) and "know-how" (procedural knowledge), as suggested by Kogut and Zander (1992).…”

Are intangibles really a source of future economic benefits? Evidence from the technology sector

“…Nevertheless, Sharma and Dharni's (2016) observed that the majority of research studies conducted in the USA, UK and France establish a negative relationship between the IA and performance of the firm. Other research found no relationship between performance and region and in a research on whether the IC value was perceived differently across nations, Inkinen et al (2017) proved the similarity of IC elements across the examined countries, establishing that firms are starting to uniform IC management, and therefore, verify less variation at this level.…”