The performance effect of intellectual capital in the Russian context

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to present a comparative analysis of the contribution made by intellectual capital (IC) to company performance at company and industry levels in the Russian context. It examines the performance effect of IC using a multilevel approach. Design/methodology/approach The study combines the resource- and industry-based view. It decomposes performance determinants into two levels of analysis in such a way that it is assumed that IC at industry and company levels has a significant simultaneous impact on company performance. The empirical part of the study uses a database of 1,096 Russian public companies, covering the period of 2004–2014 and divided into 19 industries. The econometric methodology uses hierarchical linear models to estimate the effect of IC in the different levels of analysis. Findings The study confirms that the strength of the performance effect of IC is contingent on the industry. Furthermore, the study reveals that industry-level endowment with regard to intangibles contributes more to company performance in comparison with a company-level endowment, in the context of the transitional economy. Originality/value The study proposes a novel methodological approach to the performance effect of IC in the Russian context, studying the differences between industry and company effect. The study provides insights to better understand the importance of the politics of IC at the different levels (industry and company) and presents a new empirical enquiry into strategic behaviour regarding IC in Russia.

Intellectual capital and service quality within the mobile telecommunications sector of Egypt

“…An example is a study of Zhang and Lv (2015), which found that among the four dimensions of IC (human capital, structural capital, internal social capital and external social capital), only the last two dimensions have a direct and positive impact on technological innovation. This finding is consistent with the core argument of "open innovation" literature, which states that external relationships, in particular, can bring along new knowledge and insights into the firm, allowing an opportunity for novel ideas and collaborations (Molodchik et al, 2019;Huizingh, 2011).…”

“…Although IC may be a source of competitive advantage, generally speaking, most organizations do not understand its nature and value (Sharabati et al, 2010). Nevertheless, many research studies have addressed the issue of the relevance of IC and how it can contribute to improve business performance and create value for organizations (Alrowwad et al, 2020;Molodchik et al, 2019;Bontis et al, 2018;Andreeva and Garanina, 2016;Inkinen, 2015). The exploitation of knowledge resources is increasingly found out to be the source of a company's cumulative growth (Gonz alez-Loureiro and Dorrego, 2012) and sustainable ability to compete and succeed in the modern knowledge economy (Kamukama et al, 2011;Stewart, 1997).…”

Intangible-driven performance: Two decades searching for the Philosopher's Stone

“…Two decades IC-related empirical research story confirmed, firstly, that the results of such studies are metrics sensitive [Molodchik, Shakina, Barajas, 2014] and, secondly, that contextual factors such as industry, region, country, company age, and size have a significant influence on ICbased performance [Pedro, Leitão, Alves, 2018;Molodchik, Jardon, Bykova, 2019]. Among recent high-cited publications, one can find the study of the moderation role of KM on the link between big data analytics and business performance [Ferraris et al, 2019].…”

“…Currently, value-based management [Young, O'Byrne, 2000;Ittner, Larcker, 2001;Molodchik, Shakina, Bykova, 2012; is seen one of the most closely intangible-related corporate concepts. It has opened heated debates around corporate performance driven by intangibles and created vast empirical literature drifting from a simple production function [Ming-Chin, Shu-Ju, Yuhchang, 2005;Shakina, Barajas, 2012; 2014] to multilevel specifications under different economic and institutional contexts [Naidenova, Parshakov, 2013;Molodchik, Jardon, Bykova, 2019]. Hence, the evident complications of the applied methodology and contradictions in the obtained empirical results can be considered links in the chain.…”

Firm's Value Exploration: The Impact Of Intellectual Capital and Net Working Capital

“…Intellectual capital (IC), as an intangible asset, is considered a resource that increases value, growth, innovation, and development of a company's competitive advantage because of its rare and not-easily imitable characteristics (Bayraktaroglu et al, 2019;Molodchik et al, 2019;Nimtrakoon, 2015). This makes IC as one of the most distinctive assets, and if a company invests more in IC, the company's competitive advantage and performance can be better (Huang & Huang, 2020;Nadeem et al, 2017;Suryani & Nadhiroh, 2020;Zakery & Afrazeh, 2015).…”