Sei sulla pagina 1di 20

Downloaded by National Taiwan University of Science and Technology At 02:46 07 December 2014 (PT)

Journal of Intellectual Capital Intellectual capital performance in the case of Romanian public companies Cristina
Journal of Intellectual Capital Intellectual capital performance in the case of Romanian public companies Cristina

Journal of Intellectual Capital

Intellectual capital performance in the case of Romanian public companies Cristina Maria Morariu

Article information:

To cite this document:

Cristina Maria Morariu , (2014),"Intellectual capital performance in the case of Romanian public companies", Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 15 Iss 3 pp. 392 - 410 Permanent link to this document:

Downloaded on: 07 December 2014, At: 02:46 (PT) References: this document contains references to 35 other documents. To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 220 times since 2014*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

Dr Antonio Lerro, Dr Roberto Linzalone and Professor Giovanni Schiuma, Antonio Lerro, Roberto Linzalone, Giovanni Schiuma, (2014),"Managing intellectual capital dimensions for organizational value creation", Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 15 Iss 3 pp. 350-361 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JIC-05-2014-0063

Dr Antonio Lerro, Dr Roberto Linzalone and Professor Giovanni Schiuma, Aino Kianto, Paavo Ritala, John- Christopher Spender, Mika Vanhala, (2014),"The interaction of intellectual capital assets and knowledge management practices in organizational value creation", Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 15 Iss 3 pp. 362-375 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JIC-05-2014-0059

Dr Antonio Lerro, Dr Roberto Linzalone and Professor Giovanni Schiuma, Lidia Petrova Galabova, (2014),"Recognition and management of intangibles by Bulgarian entrepreneurial firms", Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 15 Iss 3 pp. 376-391 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JIC-05-2014-0056

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 375916 []

For Authors

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Downloaded by National Taiwan University of Science and Technology At 02:46 07 December 2014 (PT)

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1469-1930.htm

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1469-1930.htm

JIC

15,3

392

Intellectual capital performance in the case of Romanian public companies

Cristina Maria Morariu

Department of Accounting and Management Information Systems, Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to identify the intellectual capital (IC) performance of the Romanian companies, to empirically examine the association between IC performance and traditional corporate performance and to analyse the relative importance of various components of IC on the company’s performance. Design/methodology/approach – Value Added Intellectual Coefficient model (VAICTM) is applied to measure IC performance. Traditional corporate performance is measured through profitability, productivity and market value. In total, 12 null hypotheses are tested using multiple regression analysis where another two control variables (firm size and industry type) are generally included. Findings – Entities creating value from their intellectual, physical and financial resources are penalized by the capital market. Capital employed has an insignificant role in both value creation and in reducing company’s production costs. Market value is not necessarily improved by a properly managed structural capital but is influenced by company size. Human capital plays a major role in productivity variation. Research limitations/implications – Results related to the impact of control factors are mixed and sometimes not significant. Additional research could introduce other control factors, may investigate paper’s hypotheses across time, revisit some of the basic assumptions of the VAICM and assess their potential consequences for the validity of empirical testing and results. Originality/value – This is the first study that replicates VAICTM in the case of Romanian companies. It provides valuable insights about corporate performance in an emerging economy and into the association between IC and traditional c orporate performance. It enriches both IC and management literature with new empirical evidence and provides a basis for comparison with other studies. Keywords Performance, Romania, Management, Measurement, Intellectual capital, VAICTM Paper type Research paper

Intellectual capital, VAICTM Paper type Research paper Journal of Intellectual Capital Vol. 15 No. 3, 2014

Journal of Intellectual Capital Vol. 15 No. 3, 2014 pp. 392-410 r Emerald Group Publishing Limited

1469-1930

DOI 10.1108/JIC-05-2014-0061

This study is a revised version of a paper presented at the 8th International Conference on Intellectual Capital and Knowledge Management held at The Institute for Knowledge and Innovation Southeast Asia (IKI-SEA) of Bangkok University, Bangkok, Thailand, on 27-28 October 2011, 7th International Conference on Accounting and Management Information Systems held at the Bucharest Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania, on 13-14 June, 2012, and 8th International Forum on Knowledge Asset Dynamics (IFKAD), Smart Growth:

Organizations, Cities and Communities held at the University of Zagreb, Faculty of Economics & Business, on 12-14 June 2013. The author thanks for the constructive feedback received from unknown reviewers and the participants to the three conferences and especially to Professor John-Christopher ( J.C.) Spender. Additionally, the author gratefully acknowledges the invaluable suggestions and comments received from the reviewers and guest editors of the Journal of Intellectual Capital special edition, Managing Intellectual Capital Dimensions for Organizational Value Creation , Dr Roberto Linzalone and Professor Antonio Lerro.

Downloaded by National Taiwan University of Science and Technology At 02:46 07 December 2014 (PT)

1. Introduction The field of intellectual capital (IC) is multidisciplinary, covering among others:

economics, strategy, accounting, finance, marketing, human resource. Consequently, the concept of IC means different things to different people, being defined and classified in several ways by researchers due to the different backgrounds and perspectives taken (Stanciu, 2008; Feleaga et al., 2011; Morariu, 2011). When it comes to IC measurement, it is considered to be a demanding, lengthy and time consuming process in practice: complexity of the process; difficulty to identify the relationships between resources; activities and company performance; overburdening of companies’ departments; novelty of using non-financial indicators; ambiguity in the interpretation of the IC indicators as well as the subjectivity of their calculation; collection and processing data to calculate the indicators (Chiucchi, 2013). But, these barriers are overridden by the various benefits of having IC measured: it provides information to govern company’s value creation dynamics; allows to acknowledge the strategic position knowledge resources play in company’s value creation dynamics; allows to align strategic objectives with knowledge asset management initiatives; explains the cause-and-effect relationships linking the development of organizational knowledge domains with the achievement of targeted strategic performance objectives; makes a company more transparent in terms of its own assets, competencies and growing capabilities; supports a better estimation of a company during mergers and acquisitions; influences shares value and its volatility; is at basis of company’s internal and external benchmarking; is at the cornerstone of the development of new business models (Lerro and Schiuma, 2013; Lerro et al., 2012; Schiuma and Lerro, 2008). As a result of a higher IC recognition, researchers are also keen to assess its impact on the companies’ business performance. Having as starting point the IC components as viewed by Edvinsson and Malone (1997) that are human capital and structural capital (SC), IC performance in the context of this study encompasses the performance of these two components. Regarding performance measurement, there are various definitions (Franco-Santos et al. , 2007), methods and instruments used in literature to accomplish this desiderate. Most of the assessment and measurement systems adopted to evaluate organizational resources tend to disregard the dynamism of knowledge resources (Lerro et al. , 2012). For the purposes of this study, value added is the method used to capture the performance of IC and its components. There are various articles analysing the relationship between the IC performance and companies’ performance. Most of them used Value Added Intellectual Coefficient model (VAICTM) as the proxy of IC performance (Pulic, 2000; Firer and Williams, 2003; Chen et al., 2005; Tseng and Goo, 2005; Goh, 2005; Tan et al. , 2007; Kamath, 2008; Ghosh and Mondal, 2009; Muhammad and Ismail, 2009; Ting and Lean, 2009; Prabowo and Soegiono, 2010; Yu et al. , 2010; Joshi et al., 2010; Zeghal and Maaloul, 2010; Molodchik and Bykova, 2011; Rahim et al. , 2010), but there are studies using different models such as IC Index (Buszko and Mroziewski, 2009), a global model (F-Jardon and Martos, 2009). The question of what variables explain companies’ IC performance has been also investigated (El-Bannany, 2008). A proof demonstrating that IC has positive impact on market value, productivity and profitability is given by approximately 67 per cent of the reviewed studies (Table I). Considering the number of studies that have used emerging economies corroborated with the lack of a study analysing whether this resource is being efficiently utilized by the Romanian companies challenged us to the present study. The primary objectives of this study are to identify the IC performance of the sample companies (using VAICTM model developed by Pulic, 2000), to empirically

Intellectual

capital

performance

393

1996-2006

2002-2006

2005-2008

2005-2007

2005-2007

1999-2007

1992-1999

1992-2002

2000-2002

2000-2009

2001-2003

2000-2005

2001-2005

1999-2005

analysis

Year of

2004

2008

2007

2005

2001

200

North American SE Developed

Developed

Developed

Developed

Developed

Developed

Developed

Emerging

Emerging

Emerging

Emerging

Emerging

Emerging

Emerging

Emerging

Emerging

Emerging

Emerging

Emerging

Emerging

Emerging

Emerging

Economy

type

Downloaded by National Taiwan University of Science and Technology At 02:46 07 December 2014 (PT)

South Africa

Malaysia Kong

UK Argentina

UK banks

Singapore

Indonesia

Australia

Malaysia

Malaysia

Malaysia

Malaysia

Country

Taiwan

Taiwan

Taiwan

Poland

Russia

Hong

India

India

UK

Companies

425-avg

100-avg

37-avg

No of

150

350

300 113

139

na

na

16

18

27

60

20

80

32

69

25

75

11

81

Dependent variable

Dependent variable

Variable type

Independent

Independent

Independent

Independent

Independent

Independent

Independent

Independent

Independent

VAICTM Global VAICTM Model na Independent

Independent

Independent

Dependent

na

na

na

na

na

na

performance

Mea sure

VAICTM

VAICTM

VAICTM

VAICTM

VAICTM

VAICTM

VAICTM

VAICTM

VAICTM

VAICTM

VAICTM

VAICTM

VAICTM

VAICTM

VAICTM

VAICTM

IC Index

IC Index

M-BV

of IC

Positive

Positive

Positive

Positive

Positive

Positive

Positive

Positive

Positive

Positive

Varied

na Varied

Varied

Varied

Varied

Varied

Varied

Varied

Varied

Varied

publication Result

na

Year of

2008

2008

2010

2007

2010

2007

2010

2010

2000

2007

2010

2010

2009

2009

2009

2009

2009

2003

2005

2005

2005

2011

Yu et al. Molodchik and Bykova Firer and William s Tan et al. Chen et al El-Bann any Bramhandkar et al. Buszko and Mroziewski

Chang Ghosh and Mondal Joshi et al. Muhammad and Ismail Kamath Ting and Lean Tseng an d Goo Pulic Goh

Prabowo and Soegiono Rahim et al.

Martos

´Ze ghal and and Maaloul

et al.

Shamsuddin

F-Jardon

Authors

JIC

15,3

394

Table I.

Literature review

summary

Downloaded by National Taiwan University of Science and Technology At 02:46 07 December 2014 (PT)

examine the association between IC performance and traditional measures of corporate performance, and last but not least to analyse the relative importance of various components of IC on the company’s performance. Data for the analysis presented in this paper is drawn from a sample of 72 firms listed on Bucharest Stock Exchange (BSE) operating into eight industry sectors. Three accounting ratios were used for measuring traditional corporate performance: market-to-book value (MB) to measure market value, return on equity (ROE) to measure profitability and asset turnover (ATO) to measure productivity. The statistical tools that are used in the methodology are descriptive statistics and multiple linear regression analysis. The results from the present study provide insights about corporate performance in an emerging economy and into the association between IC and traditional corporate performance in an emerging economy like Romania. Additionally it will assist to determine if Romanian firms appear to continue to rely on traditional business practices or are shifting towards a greater reliance on IC factors in determining company’s performance. In order to achieve authors’ objectives, the remainder of the present paper is organized as it follows. Next section discusses literature review and develops a series of empirically testable hypothesis. It is then followed by another section that describes the research method. An independent section discusses the empirical results. The final section is by way of summary and conclusion and it ends the paper with the ideas for future research directions.

Intellectual

capital

performance

395

2. Literature review 2.1 IC models There have been developed a variety of methodologies for measuring intangible assets that are classified according to different criteria (Sullivan, 1998; Sveiby, 2010). Herein the paper shall discuss some of the selected approaches in terms of their strengths, weaknesses and reliability. Balance scorecard, proposed by Kaplan and Norton (1992), sets financial and non-financial measures to indicate four perspectives: financials; customers; internal process; and leaning and growth. It provides for the control of intangibles while simultaneously monitoring financial results. It is very company specific and thus it does not have general application and make comparison impossible. Additionally, it is unable to assign a financial value for the intellectual assets in an objective manner. Skandia Navigator was proposed by Edvinsson and Malone (1997) and provides supplementary information to annual financial reports. It focuses on non-financial measures covering five components: financial; customer; process; renewal and development; and human. It recognizes the role of customer capital in creating value. Still, it uses proxy measures to track trends in the assumed value added, can be monotonous, suffers of subjectivity and thus affecting comparability. Intangible Asset Monitor was proposed by Sveiby (1997). It provides strategic information of the firm concerning: growth; renewal; efficiency; stability; and risk. Invisible assets are matched on the financing side of the balance sheet by equally invisible finance, most of which are in the form of invisible equity. Still, it is difficult to assign monetary financial values to the final measure and it suffers the problems of subjectivity, thus making comparison difficult (Bontis, 2001). Calculated intangible value (CIV) was developed and popularized in the year of 1997 by Thomas Stewart (Titova, 2011). It is a standardized and consistent basis of measure, therefore enabling the effective conduct of an international comparative analysis. Nevertheless, for its calculation it is needed for industry average return on

Downloaded by National Taiwan University of Science and Technology At 02:46 07 December 2014 (PT)

JIC

15,3

396

assets, that sometimes is difficult to find; additionally, it is subjectivity associated with underlying indicators and there are difficulties in verifying information used in calculating indicators comprising other IC measures. VAICTM was introduced by Pulic (2000). The model provides information regarding value creation efficiency from company’s tangible and intangible assets. The drawbacks of this model are the use of basic financial information in their composition; measurement for SC may be incomplete; subjectivity associated with underlying indicators and, difficulties in verifying information used in calculating indicators comprising other IC measures. The 4K strategies (Lerro et al. , 2012; Lerro and Schiuma, 2013) is a measurement system able to integrate information about the knowledge asset stocks with information concerning the evolution of knowledge assets over the time. Four main knowledge assets assessment strategies are proposed:

(1)

knowledge asset measurement strategy (KAMS);

(2)

knowledge domain assessment strategy (KDAS);

(3)

knowledge asset accounting strategy (KAAS); and

(4)

knowledge asset communication strategy (KACS).

The main limitation of this model is that it is time consuming and requires resources that many companies could not afford to allocate. Chiucchi (2013) is using an IC measurement system composed of a map of company intangible resources and a map of development activities as well as a list of indicators, predominantly non-financial, which express the growth/decline of intangible resources and the efficiency and effectiveness of the management activities. An IC report is also prepared, containing indicators and narratives. The limitations of this model are due to the use of non-financial indicators, the high risk of indicators becoming obsolete and the effort needed for their calculation. Additionally, implementation of the IC measurement and reporting system was demanding, lengthy and time consuming. Considering the advantages and limitat ions of the above models, it seems that no model is “perfect”. Nevertheless, as it will be shown below, VAICTM, though severely criticized, it has been widely applied by research studies aiming for measuring IC and IC performance. According to these stu dies, the model produces quantifiable, objective and quantitative measurements. Additionally, it can be easily applied by someone external to the company. Last but not least, the model was used in several studies conducted in emerging ec onomies and therefore, authors’ option for this model in the Romanian context is justifiable as it will allow comparison between studies.

2.2 Prior research For the first time, VAICTM was tested by Pulic (2000) on UK companies during 1992-1998. He has found out that the average values of VAIC and MB exhibited a high degree of correspondence. Regarding UK companies, similar results are obtained by Zeghal and Maaloul (2010) that replicated the study using 2005 data. Investigating UK banks over 1999-2005, El-Bannany (2008) found that bank’s efficiency, profitability and risk have positive impact on HCE. These results are in line with those obtained by:

Bramhandkar et al. (2007) in the case of drugs industry traded on North American

Downloaded by National Taiwan University of Science and Technology At 02:46 07 December 2014 (PT)

stock exchanges, Joshi et al. (2010) in the case of Australian banks, Tan et al. (2007) in the case of Singapore but opposed to those obtained in the case of Hong Kong (Yu et al. , 2010) where physical and financial assets are critical when evaluating

a company’s business performance. Taking a cursoring look at the studies conducted in the emerging economies, Firer and Williams (2003) investigated the association between efficiency of value added of the major components of a firm’s resources and corporate performance in South Africa. Empirical findings suggest physical capital remains the most significant underlying resource of corporate performance. Similar results are obtained by F-Jardon and Martos (2009) in the case of Argentinean wood manufacturers who found that the only dimension of IC directly affecting company’s performance is SC. Moving to another continent, Chen et al. (2005) analyse the relationship between VAIC and MB as well as corporate performance for all public Taiwanese companies during 1992-2002. This study provides empirical evidence that investors place higher value on firms with better IC efficiency, and that firm with better IC efficiency yield greater profitability and revenue growth. In line with their results are those obtained by Tseng and Goo (2005), as they concluded that IC components positively influence the corporate value of listed Taiwanese manufacturers. Several studies were conducted in Malaysia too. Accordingly, Goh (2005) measured the IC performance of Malaysian commercial banks during 2001-2003. The result showed that HCE is higher than CEE for both domestic and foreign banks. For the same country and sector, similar results are obtained by Ting and Lean (2009) who found that for 1999-2007 period CEE have significant positive effect on profitability while SCE has negative effect. Surprisingly, the results obtained by Muhammad and Ismail (2009) are somehow different in that way that HCE and SCE do not influence the profitability. However, CEE shows positive and significant relationships with company’s profitability. Prabowo and Soegiono (2010) analyze the association between government ownership and IC performance and found that Indonesian banks are not optimal in capitalizing their IC. In India, Kamath (2008) studies the relationship between IC components with traditional measures of performance in the drug industry during 1996-2006. The results show that HC has a major impact on the profitability and productivity of the firms. In addition, there is no significant association between the size and leverage of the firm with its MB and secondly, there is no relation between the firm’s financial performance and its productivity. These results are confirmed one year later by Ghosh and Mondal (2009) who replicated this study considering 1996-2006 period. Regarding the research conducted in the case of European emerging economies, the authors can notice the results of Bu szko and Mroziewski (2009) that developed and applied the index of IC to construction companies registered in Poland, during 2000-2005 in relation to the growth of their net profit. They found the quality of IC components directly affects companies’ financial performance, profit growth rate and competitive position. S imilar results are obtained by Molodchik and Bykova (2011) in the case of 350 Russian industrial enterprises analysed for 2005-2007 period.

Intellectual

capital

performance

397

2.3 Research hypotheses

Based on the conclusions reached by the above reviewed studies, it may be argued that

a firm with higher IC performance is expected to have higher rate of profitability and

also it may experience higher productivity. Thus, in this study the authors predict a

positive relationship between companies’ performance and IC performance of the

Downloaded by National Taiwan University of Science and Technology At 02:46 07 December 2014 (PT)

JIC

15,3

related Romanian companies. Accordingly the authors propose for examination a total of 12 hypotheses:

H1a. VAICTM is positively associated with market value.

H1b. VAICTM is positively associated with profitability.

398

H1c. VAICTM is positively associated with productivity.

H2a. VAHU is positively associated with market value.

H2b. VAHU is positively associated with profitability.

H2c. VAHU is positively associated with productivity.

H3a. SCVA is positively associated with market value.

H3b. SCVA is positively associated with profitability.

H3c. SCVA is positively associated with productivity.

H4a. VACA is positively associated with market value.

H4b. VACA is positively associated with profitability.

H4c. VACA is positively associated with productivity.

3. Methodology

3.1 Sample selection

Our sample consisted of 72 Romanian firms that were listed on BSE as at 31 December

2010. These 72 companies represented all Romanian companies listed on BSE under

the following tiers: 23 companies were listed on Tier I, 48 companies were listed on Tier II and one company was listed on Tier III. A preliminary testing of the sample companies showed that variables are not normally distributed. Consequently the authors applied to them base 10 logarithm. This variables transformation caused missing values in the case of some variables. The authors let the data as it was, with

the missing values in place, but when testing them, it was used SPSS “listwise deletion” option of the missing values. For constructing a comparable framework with other studies, the authors have used for industries/sectors classification the definitions provided by the Global Industry Classification Standard (GICS) at 30 December

2010. Furthermore, for the purposes of testing the hypothesis, the industries are

classified into traditional industries (TI) and knowledge intensive business services

(KIBS). Table II provides a picture of classification results.

3.2 Definition of variables

3.2.1 Dependent variables. The three traditional financial indicators used as dependent variables are MB for market value, ATO for productivity and ROE for profitability. The following general formulas were considered for computation:

MB ¼ Market Capitalization/Shareholders’ Equity

Rompetrol Rafinare

Petrolexportimport

Compania S.A.

Oil Terminal S.A.

Rompetrol Well

Energy sector

Services S.A.

Baile Felix Felix S.A. Energopetrol

Casa De Bucovina- Omv Petrom Club De Munte

Traditional

Uztel S.A.

industry

S.A.

S.A.

7

Marea

Turism, Hoteluri,

Neagra - Artrom

S.A. Ucm Resita S.A.

discretionary

Compa S. A.

Restaurante

Downloaded by National Taiwan University of Science and Technology At 02:46 07 December 2014 (PT)

Traditional

Uamt S.A.

Altur S.A.

Utilities sector Industrials sector Consumer staples Consumer

industry

Turism

T.M.K.

8

Boromir Prod

Bermas S.A.

Traditional

Titan S.A.

industry

Buzau

3

Condmag S.A. Transilvania Constructii Santierul Naval Orsova Vae Apcarom S.A. Contor Group S.A. Grupul Industrial Electrocontact S.A.

Electroarges Curtea De Arges Sa Mecanica Ceahlau

Turbomecanica

Electroaparataj

Aerostar S.A.

Comelf S.A.

Traditional

Comcm Sa

Socep S.A.

Constanta

industry

S.A.

14

Transgaz S.A.

Transelectrica

Traditional

S.N.T.G.N.

C.N.T.E.E.

industry

2

Sif Muntenia Sif Oltenia S.A. Sif Transilvania Sc Bursa De Valori Bucuresti

Farmaceutica Remedia Sa Deva S.S.I.F. Broker S.A. Sif Banat Crisana S.A.

Carpatica Comerciala

Developer

Sif Moldova S.A.

Generale

HealthCare sector Financial sector

and Contractor

S.A.

Banca Transilvania Brd – Groupe

Knowledge

intensive

Impact

Societe

Banca

S.A.

11

Antibiotice S.A.

Sa

Biofarm S.A.

Zentiva S.A.

Knowledge

Oltchim S.A. Rm. Ropharma Brasov

intensive

5

Vrancart Sa Electroputere S.A. Mefin S.A. Cemacon Sa Zalau Mj Maillis Romania Siretul Pascani Teraplast Sa

Mechel Targoviste

Materials sector

Carbochim S.A.

Azomures S.A.

Armatura S.A.

Romcarbon Sa

Prodplast S.A.

Alumil Rom S.A. Industry

Amonil S.A.

Zimtub S.A.

Sinteza S.A.

Traditional

Dafora Sa

Prefab Sa

Bucuresti

companies Company name Alro S.A.

industry

Ves Sa

22

GICS Criteria

KIBS criteria

No. of

Intellectual

capital

performance

399

Table II. Companies classification

Downloaded by National Taiwan University of Science and Technology At 02:46 07 December 2014 (PT)

JIC

15,3

ATO ¼ Turnover/Total Assets ROE ¼ Net Profit/Shareholders’ Equity

3.2.2 Independent variables. The literature review revealed the use of VAIC as

both a dependent and an independent variable. It will be included in this study as independent variable, in order to test the extent to which it may be related to a company’s performance. Using the VAICTM, three coefficients were selected to

400 measure the independent variables under consideration:

(1) VAHU: Value-added human capital coefficient VAHU ¼ VA/HC VA ¼ OUT INPUT ¼ Sales Input HC ¼ all the expenditures for employees (total salaries and wages) (2) SCVA: Value added structural capital coefficient SCVA ¼ SC/VA SC ¼ VA HC VAIN: the value added IC coefficient VAIN ¼ VAHU þ SCVA (3) VACA: the value added capital employed coefficient VACA ¼ VA/CA CA ¼ book value of the net assets (or equity) In the end, VAIC ¼ VAHU þ SCVA þ VACA

3.2.3 Control variables. In conducting the multiple regression analysis, two control

variables (firm size and industry type) are generally included. Proxy measures are

briefly described as follows:

(1)

size of the firm (Ln_Sales) ¼ natural logarithm of total sales; and

(2)

industry type: dummy variable representing two major industries: knowledge intensive (KI) and TI.

3.3 Regression models

Six regression models were used to investigate paper’s 12 hypotheses. The first three models investigate the association between VAIC and the three dependent variables; the remaining three models investigate on the association between VAIC components

and dependent variables:

M1. MB ¼ b 1VAICTM þ b 2FSIZE þ b3INDUSTRY M2. ATO ¼ b 1VAICTM þ b 2FSIZE þ b 3INDUSTRY M3. ROE ¼ b 1VAICTM þ b2FSIZE þ b 3INDUSTRY M4. MB ¼ b 1VAHU þ b 2SCVA þ b3VACA þ b4FSIZE þ b 5INDUSTRY M5. ATO ¼ b 1VAHU þ b 2SCVA þ b 3VACA þ b 4FSIZE þ b 5INDUSTRY M6. ROE ¼ b 1VAHU þ b2SCVA þ b3VACA þ b 4FSIZE þ b5INDUSTRY

4. Results and analysis

4.1 Descriptive statistics

From the output (Table III) it can be seen that most of the variables have skewness values

between 1 and 1, but two of them do not (VACA and ROE). Nevertheless, if consider the mean and median for these two variables, one can observe that they are approximately equal so the authors can assume that the distribution is approximately normal for these variables too. The comparison between VAIN and VACA suggests that during 2010 the sample companies were generally more effective in creating VA from their IC (VAIN ¼ 0.6581) than from physical and financial capital employed (VACA ¼ 1.5204).

Downloaded by National Taiwan University of Science and Technology At 02:46 07 December 2014 (PT)

 

Intellectual

 

Valid

n

Missing

 

Mean

Median

Skewness

SE of skewness

capital

SALES_LN

72

0

18.5038

18.5215

 

0.584

0.283

performance

VAHU_LN

61

11

0.3519

0.2950

0.769

0.306

VACA_LN

62

10

1.5204

1.3411

1.519

0.304

SCVA_LN

57

15

0.8688

0.8236

0.252

0.316

401

VAICTM_LG

61

 

11

0.3466

0.3286

0.005

0.306

 

ROE_LN

54

18

3.2434

2.9040

1.213

0.325

ATO_LN

72

0

0.8121

0.5731

0.321

0.283

MB_LN

69

3

0.4879

0.3818

0.122

0.289

Table III.

VAIN_LN

61

11

0.6581

0.5770

0.131

0.306

Descriptive statistics

To compare between groups of industries, a one-way ANOVA was conducted on the two industries. Results (Table IV) suggest that KI industries were more efficient in adding value from its human capital then TI group. This result was somehow expected. Both groups were generally more effective in creating VA from their IC than from physical and financial capital employed (VAIN 4 VACA). This finding suggests that, even within TI sectors, the conventional underlying factors of production such as physical and financial capital lost much of their importance in favour of IC factors. In addition the results shows that KI industries were generally more effective in creating VA from their intellectual, physical and financial resources (VAICTM ¼ 1.5455) then TI group (VAICTM ¼ 0.5543), F ¼ 17.58, po 0.05.

 

4.2 Correlation analysis Correlation analysis is the initial statistical technique used to analyse the association between the dependent and the independent variables. Table V shows the findings from Pearson correlation matrix analysis. As a start, the Pearson’s correlation coefficients were analysed to check for the absence of multicollinearity problems. Although there are significant correlations between dependent and independent variables, none of them raises a multicolinearity problem ( r o0.8). Considering the correlations between independent variables and dependent variables, only nine are statistically significant. VACA is significantly positively associated with ROE, r (50) ¼ 0.512, po 0.01 and with MB, r (60) ¼ 0.502, po0.01 and ATO, r (62) ¼ 0.316, p o 0.05.This means that companies with relatively high VACA were likely to have high ROE, MB and ATO. SCVA is significantly negatively

 

Knowledge industry

Traditional industry

 

Total

n

Mean

 

n

Mean

n

Mean

F

Sig.

VAHU_LN

14

1.3103

47

0.0665

61

0.3519 25.25

0.000

SCVA_LN

16

0.5798

41

0.9815

57

0.8688

1.152 0.288

 

VAIN_LN

15

1.4324

46

0.4056

61

0.6581 16.73

0.000

VACA_LN

14

1.2616

48

1.5959

62

1.5204

1.003 0.321

 

VAICTM_LN

15

1.5455

46

0.5543

61

0.7981 17.58

0.000

ROE_LN

14

2.3845

40

3.5440

54

3.2434

4.196 0.046

 

ATO_LN

16

1.4758

 

56

0.6225

72

0.8121

9.481 0.003

Table IV.

MB_LN

16

0.1892

53

0.6923

69

0.4879

10.17

0.002

One-way ANOVA

SALES_LN

16

18.8232

 

56

18.4126

72

18.5038

0.742 0.392

summary

Downloaded by National Taiwan University of Science and Technology At 02:46 07 December 2014 (PT)

JIC

15,3

402

Table V.

Pearson correlation

summary

VAHU_LN SCVA_LN VACA_LN VAICTM_LN ROE_LN ATO_LN MB_LN

VAHU_LN Pearson

Correlation

1

0.708**

0.263*

0.918**

0.287* 0.228

0.263*

Sig. (two-tailed)

0.000

0.042

0.000

0.046

0.077

0.043

n

61

46

60

54

49

61

60

SCVA_LN Pearson

Correlation

0.708**

1

0.091

0.524**

0.192 0.365** 0.171

Sig. (two-tailed)

0.000

0.540

0.000

0.207

0.005

0.211

n

46

57

48

53

45

57

55

VACA_LN Pearson

Correlation

0.263*

0.091

1

0.098

0.512** 0.316*

0.502**

Sig. (two-tailed)

0.42

0.540

0.476

0.000

0.012

0.000

n

60

48

62

55

50

62

60

VAICTM_LN Pearson

Correlation

0.918**

0.524**

0.098

1

0.283

0.286* 0.141

Sig. (two-tailed)

0.000

0.000

0.476

0.054

0.025

0.282

n

54

53

55

61

47

61

60

ROE_LN Pearson

Correlation

0.287*

0.192

0.512**

0.283

1

0.127

0.616**

Sig. (two-tailed)

0.46

0.207

0.000

0.054

0.358

0.000

n

49

45

50

47

54

54

51

ATO_LN Pearson

Correlation

0.228

0.365** 0.316*

0.286*

0.127

1

0.302*

Sig. (two-tailed)

0.077

0.005

0.012

0.025

0.358

0.012

n

61

57

62

61

54

72

69

MB_LN

0.263* 0.171

0.502**

0.141

0.616** 0.302*

1

Sig. (two-tailed)

0.43

0.211

0.000

0.282

0.000

0.012

n

60

55

60

60

51

69

69

Notes: *,**Correlation is significant at 0.05 and 0.01 level, respectively (two-tailed)

correlated with ATO, r (57) ¼ 0.365, po 0.01. This means that companies that have efficiently used their SC were likely to have recorded a small ATO. No significant correlation is between SCVA and MB and ROE. VAHU is significantly positively correlated with ROE, r(49) ¼ 0.287, po 0.05 and MB, r (60) ¼ 0.263, p o0.05. This means that when companies used efficiently their HC they recorded a higher ROE and MB. VAHU is not significantly correlated with ATO. Considering VAIC the findings show a significant negative correlation with ATO, r(61) ¼ 0.286, po0.05. No significant correlation is between this independent variable and the remaining two variables (MB and ROE). Overall, correlation results imply that sample firms with a higher-level of VACA were associated with higher levels of productivity, profitability and higher levels of market value. Moreover, sample firms with higher levels of VAHU were associated with higher levels of profitability and market value and, sample firms with higher levels of SCVA were associated with lower level of productivity. Consequently, in accordance with authors’ expectations, these findings appear to entirely support H2a, H2b, H4a, H4b and H4c while rejecting, at least partially the rest of the hypotheses.

4.3 Regression analysis Table VI exhibits the results of the regression coefficients for general explanatory variables using market value (MB) as the dependent variable. The model is statistically significant ( F(3, 56) ¼ 14.145, p o0.01). In line with theoretical expectations, the results indicate a significant association between the VAIC and MB, ( p o0.01). However, because the correlation between VAHU and MB is negative it means that H1a is

Downloaded by National Taiwan University of Science and Technology At 02:46 07 December 2014 (PT)

rejected. The adjusted R 2 is 0.401 indicating that 40 per cent of the variance in MB was explained by the model. Table VII shows the results of regression coefficients for general explanatory variables, using profitability (ROE) as the dependent variable. The model is statistically significant (F(3, 43) ¼ 3.572, po0.05). However, contrary to theoretical expectations, the results indicate a non-significant association between the VAIC, company size and industry type and companies’ profitability. Accordingly, hypothesis H1b is rejected. The adjusted R 2 is 0.144 indicating that about 14 per cent of the variance in profitability was explained by the model. Table VIII exhibits the results of the regression coefficients for general explanatory variables, using productivity (ATO) as the dependent variable. The model is statistically significant (F(3, 57) ¼ 5.232, po0.01), but H1c is also rejected because the results indicate a non-significant association between VAIC and ATO. The results analysed up to this point partially confirm the findings of Firer and Williams (2003), Ghosh and Mondal (2009) and appear to reject H1a, H1b and H1c. Regarding the control variables, it can be noticed that company size is significantly positively associated with MB and ATO. No significant association is identified between company size and productivity.

Intellectual

capital

performance

403

Unstandardized coefficients

Standardized coefficients b

Model

B

SE

t

Sig.

1

Constant

2.102

1.228

1.712

0.092

VAICTM_LN

0.538

0.118

0.547

4.582

0.000

SALES_LN

0.227

0.062

0.392

3.685

0.001

Table VI. Regression

analysis_M1_coefficients

INDUSTRY

1.184

0.235

0.581

 

5.041

0.000

Notes: a Dependent variable: MB_LN; R 2 ¼ 0.431; F (3, 56) ¼ 14.145. po 0.01

 
 

Unstandardized coefficients

 

Model

B

SE

Standardized coefficients b

 

t

Sig.

1

Constant

6.226

2.578

2.415

0.020

VAICTM_LN

0.125

0.254

0.079

0.491

0.626

SALES_LN

0.235

0.129

0.260

1.824

0.075

Table VII. Regression

analysis_M2_coefficients

INDUSTRY

0.844

0.491

0.267

 

1.719

0.093

Notes: a Dependent variable: ROE_LN; R 2 ¼ 0.199; F (3, 43) ¼ 3.572. po 0.05

 
 

Unstandardized

 

Model

B

SE

Standardized coefficients b

t

Sig.

1

Constant

4.892

1.524

3.209

0.002

SALES_LN

0.172

0.077

0.278

2.244

0.029

INDUSTRY

0.656

0.297

0.295

2.210

0.031

VAICTM_LN

0.251

0.149

0.234

1.679

0.099

Notes: a Dependent variable: ATO_LN; R 2 ¼ 0.216; F (3, 57) ¼ 5.232. po 0.01

Table VIII. Regression

analysis_M3_coefficients

Downloaded by National Taiwan University of Science and Technology At 02:46 07 December 2014 (PT)

JIC

15,3

404

Table IX exhibits the results of the regression coefficients for all explanatory variables using market value (MB) as the dependent variable. The model is significant ( F (5, 40) ¼ 6.426, po 0.01) and explains 37.6 per cent of the variance in MB (adjusted R

is 0.376). Looking at the significance of each variable, one can observe that except for

VACA and SCVA, all the variables are significant; that company’s size is positively

correlated with MB while VAHU is negatively correlated with MB. However, contrary

to theoretical expectations, the results exhibited in Table IX indicate a non-significant

association between VACA and MB and SCVA and MB and it appears to reject H4a and H3a . Additionally, because the correlation between VAHU and MB is negative it means that H2a is also rejected. Table X shows the results of regression coefficients for all explanatory variables, using profitability (ROE) as the dependent variable. The model is not statistically significant ( F (5, 34) ¼ 1.510, p4 0.05) and accordingly, H2b , H3b and H4b are rejected.

This finding partially confirm the findings from Joshi et al. (2010), Muhammad and Ismail (2009), Kamath (2008). Table XI exhibits the results of the regression coefficients for all explanatory

variables, using productivity (ATO) as the dependent variable. The model is statistically significant (F(5, 40) ¼ 4.755, po0.01) and explains 29.4 per cent of the variance in productivity (adjusted R 2 ¼ 0.294). Table XI shows a significant negative correlation between VAHU and productivity. No significant correlation is identified between SCVA, VACA and productivity. These results confirm that HU plays a major role in productivity variation. Moreover, this finding agrees with previous studies conducted by Zeghal and Maaloul (2010). However, contrary to theoretical expectations, the results indicate

a non-significant association between both VACA and SCVA and productivity.

2

Unstandardized coefficients

Standardized coefficients b

 

Model

B

SE

t

Sig.

1

Constant

0.922

1.530

0.603

0.550

 

SALES_LN

0.157

0.070

0.305

2.236

0.031

INDUSTRY

1.134

0.241

0.661

4.709

0.000

VAHU_LN

0.421

0.202

0.413

2.089

0.043

SCVA_LN

0.049

0.147

0.062

0.334

0.740

Table IX.

VACA_LN

0.102

0.141

0.095

0.725

0.473

Regression analysis_

M4_coefficients

Notes: a Dependent variable: MB_LN; R 2 ¼ 0.445; F (5, 40) ¼ 6.426. p o0.01

 
 

Unstandardized coefficients

 
 

Model

B

SE

Standardized coefficients b

t

Sig.

1

Constant

2.350

3.424

0.686

0.497

 

INDUSTRY

0.692

0.543

0.240

1.275

0.211

VAHU_LN

0.132

0.445

0.078

0.296

0.769

SCVA_LN

0.182

0.321

0.138

0.568

0.574

VACA_LN

0.248

0.326

0.135

0.760

0.452

Table X.

Regression analysis_

SALES_LN

0.052

0.160

0.060

0.322

0.749

M5_coefficients

Notes: a Dependent variable: ROE_LN; R 2 ¼ 0.182; F (5, 34) ¼ 1.510. p 40.05

 

Downloaded by National Taiwan University of Science and Technology At 02:46 07 December 2014 (PT)

These results partially confirm the findings of Ghosh and Mondal (2009) and appear to reject H2c , H3c and H4c. Regarding the control variables, it seems that the results obtained do not sustain the significant positive association between company size and productivity that was previously identified.

5. Discussions and conclusions The results show a significant negative association between the VAIC and MB indicating that although some entities were generally more effective in managing/ creating value from their intellectual, physical and financial resources, they are not appreciated by the capital market. Additionally the results indicate a non-significant association between the VAIC, company size and companies’ profitability, measured in ROE terms. In fact, it looks that, in the case of Romanian companies, none of the independent variables (capital employed, SC, human capital, company size) explain the variation in entity’s profitability. This could be due to the limited depth and maturity of the market as well as by the particularities of the analysed period in the context of the international turmoil. A significant negative association is identified between VAHU and MB indicating that firms who are high on creating value from/managing human capital activities are significantly undervalued in the market. Though at a first analysis, this result may appear odd, it may be explained by the fact that in the context of global economic crisis, Romanian investors (similar to worldwide investors) became more risk adverse in respect of their investments. Furthermore, human capital is part of intangible assets, and investments in intangibles are considered to carry more risk than, for example, investments in fixed assets. Contrary to theoretical expectations, the results exhibited indicate a non-significant association between VACA and MB. This indicates that managing/creating value from capital employed (that is total assets less current liabilities) is less important for Romanian investors and not seen as having a significant role in organization’s value creation process. There is also a possibility for the Romanian investors to still underestimate the importance of working capital management (as part of capital employed). This result could also be explained by the general economic crisis that may have influenced Romanian investors’ decision-making process in the way that it switched their thinking from an asset backed/balance sheet perspective (which among others, shows capital employed) to a primarily cash flow performance one. The principle of prudence may have also dictated to Romanian investors that just creating value from a properly managed capital employed is not enough and it should be analysed in connection to a properly managed financing structure. Last but not

Intellectual

capital

performance

405

 

Unstandardized coefficients

Standardized coefficients b

 

Model

B

SE

 

t

Sig.

1

Constant

1.121

1.956

0.573

0.570

INDUSTRY

0.555

0.308

0.269

1.803

0.079

VAHU_LN

0.543

0.258

0.443

2.107

0.041

SCVA_LN

0.137

0.188

0.145

0.732

0.468

VACA_LN

0.278

0.181

0.215

1.540

0.132

SALES_LN

0.025

0.090

0.041

0.281

0.780

Notes: a Dependent variable: ATO_LN; R 2 ¼ 0.373; F (5, 40) ¼ 4.755. po 0.01

Table XI. Regression analysis_M6 _coefficients

Downloaded by National Taiwan University of Science and Technology At 02:46 07 December 2014 (PT)

JIC

15,3

406

least, one explanation for this result may be that Romanian investors started to place a higher role on intellectual capital (IC), or on other assets that do not appear on balance sheets, but are crucial to judging a company’s value. Considering that majority of the sample companies are from TI and the prudence principle that dominate Romanian investors, the last argument is not regarded as being very powerful. Results exhibited also indicate a non-significant association between SCVA and MB, meaning that market value in the case of Romanian companies is not significantly improved by an effectively managed SC (non-physical infrastructure, processes and databases of the organization that enable human capital to function; generally, it includes: processes, patents, trademarks, organization’s image, organization’s information system, software and databases). This result could also be interpreted in the context of global economic crisis and prudence principle not withstanding the fact that in the study most of the sample companies are from TI. Even though SC should be a key component of each company, it plays a major role in the case of KI companies more then in the case of traditional ones and even if the real promise of the knowledge economy comes in the creation of SC, Romania is an emerging economy and does not appear to be changing towards a knowledge economy. Managing SC is a very “expensive” process as it requires lots of resources and unfortunately not all its components are shown on the face of balance sheets making thus difficult for stakeholders to assess the full benefits of carrying on this process. For example, even if, according to Romanian standards, companies traded on capital markets are required to have a sound control system (which is based on a sound information system), due to being very expensive, investors may prefer to direct financial resources towards other investments that could be more easily turned into cash or cash equivalents. Moreover, even though patents and trademarks offer competitive advantage, Romanian companies still consider them too expensive compared to the benefits they generate in the context of a lack of liquidities and global economic crisis. Even for KI companies, which compete on innovation and research and development, value created by SC in the case of Romanian companies does not overcome the costs attached (as it takes a long time to see the benefits and be shown on the face of the balance sheet). There is also a possibility that due to a limited depth of the market, Romanian investors do not to correctly assess the true importance and the benefits of having an effective managed SC and a competitive advantage. Being an emerging economy, and considering the costs of having a properly managed SC, Romanian companies may not yet be prepared as they may not afford it. Moving forward with the discussion, a significant negative correlation is identified between VAHU and productivity (ATO), but no significant correlation is identified between SCVA, VACA and productivity (ATO). This indicates that neither capital employed nor SC play a major role in reducing company’s production costs and that human capital is a major determinant in decreasing productivity. These results corroborate with the results discussed above indicating that human capital is an expensive resource. According to the results, employees cost represents an important cost from total production costs and human capital is not effectively managed. The consequences of this result (decrease in productivity and poor human capital management) one could extrapolate as determinants of a decrease in Romanian exports, negative balance of payments, the need to resort to lending from International Monetary Fund, etc. Regarding the control variables, it can be noticed that company size (sales) is significantly positively associated with market value (MB) and productivity (ATO); no significant association is identified between company size and profitability (ROE).

Downloaded by National Taiwan University of Science and Technology At 02:46 07 December 2014 (PT)

These results are consistent with the above discussed Romanian investors’ attitude towards risk and confirm that size by its own does not matter when it comes to profit. In other words, if companies’ turnover is high it increases the confidence of Romanian investors in that company. However, a company may have huge sales but much bigger costs, situation in which a company may have a loss. Accordingly, the results confirm the rational according to which in order to analyse profitability, one must also consider the costs, not just sales. The findings of this study are partially consistent with the studies on Malaysia (Muhammad and Ismail, 2009; Ting and Lean, 2009), India (Ghosh and Mondal, 2009; Kamath, 2008), South Africa (Firer and Williams, 2003) and UK (Zeghal and Maaloul, 2010). To conclude, results analysed above must be considered in the context of a post communist country which currently is an emerging economy. Authors believe it is important to remind this because, as opposed to developed countries, Romania presents specific features regarding its capital market (new capital market, few transactions compared to developed countries, a limited number of companies traded), companies’ financing structure (bank loans override capital market borrowing) and a new, poor, underdeveloped corporate governance system. So, Romania provides for a different institutional setting from most developed and capital market-oriented countries, where most of the IC-oriented studies have been made. Accordingly, besides general economic crisis factor, the results may be explained by the fact that the concept of IC is not as well-developed in Romania as it is in more developed countries; that high costs associated with gathering, interpretation and managing IC and its components do not make sense in a cost-benefit analysis. Culture and attitude towards risk may have had also an impact on Romanian stakeholders’ perception on the importance of IC, making thus difficult for Romanian stakeholders to fully understand the advantages of having a properly managed IC or its dimensions and its impact on organizational value creation. This research is not without limitations. First, the study is using for this study a single-period data and a relatively small sample. The results related to the impact of control factors on dependent variables are mixed and sometimes not significant. Additional research could eventually introduce other control factors to provide clearer results. Moreover, future research can be undertaken to investigate associations studied in the present paper across time and could revisit some of the basic assumptions of the VAICM and assess their potential consequences for the validity of empirical testing and results. Despite its inherent limitations, it is worth mentioning that this is the first study made on Romanian companies using VAICTM. It is felt that the results provide valuable insights into the association between IC and traditional perceptions of corporate performance and they help us understand how managing IC dimensions (capital employed, SC and human capital) contributes to companies’ value creation process in the case of a post communist country with an emerging economy. This study will also diminish the gap existing between the number of the studies carried out in different countries and even different continents (as per Table I) and the lack of studies made on Romania. Accordingly, this study enriches IC literature with new empirical evidence from an emerging east central European country and provides a basis for comparison with the results of the studies conducted/to be conducted in other developing countries. This will increase the general power of the analysis (as more data are used), improve the precision of estimates, explain heterogeneity between the results

Intellectual

capital

performance

407

JIC

15,3

408

of individual studies, and assess whether similar effects exist in similar situations. Furthermore, this study will allow to asses whether companies in countries and economies like Romania’s, should be expected to behave differently than companies in more developed countries/economies. Last but not least, authors believe this study is likely to encourage greater debate over IC management and its role on organizational value creation.

Downloaded by National Taiwan University of Science and Technology At 02:46 07 December 2014 (PT)

References Bontis, N. (2001), “Assessing knowledge assets: a review of the models used to measure

intellectual capital”, International Journal of Management Reviews , Vol. 3, pp. 41-60.

Bramhandkar, A. et al. (2007), “Intellectual capital and organizational performance: an empirical study of the pharmaceutical industry”, The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 5, pp. 357-362. Buszko, A. and Mroziewski, M. (2009), “The intellectual capital impact on polish construction

companies during the transformation period”, Journal of Human Resource Costing &

Accounting, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 206-220.

Chen, M.-C. et al. (2005), “An empirical investigation of the relationship between intellectual

capital and firms’ market value and financial performance”, Journal of Intellectual Capital,

Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 159-176. Chiucchi, M.S. (2013), “Measuring and reporting IC: lessons learned from an interventionist

research project”, Journal of Intellectual Capital , Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 395-413.

Edvinsson, L. and Malone, M. (1997), Intellectual Capital: Realizing Your Company’s True Value by Finding Its Hidden Brainpower, HarperCollins, New York, NY. El-Bannany, M. (2008), “A study of determinants of intellectual capital performance in banks: the

UK case”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 9, pp. 487-498.

Feleaga, N. et al. (2011), “Intellectual capital disclosure: European evidence”, Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Accounting and Management Information Systems , Bucharest, 8-9 June . Firer, S. and Williams, M.S. (2003), “Intellectual capital and traditional measures of corporate

performance”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 4, pp. 348-360.

F-Jardon, C.M. and Martos, S.M. (2009), “Intellectual capital and performance in wood industries

of Argentina”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 600-616.

Franco-Santos, M., Kennerley, M., Micheli, P., Martinez, V., Mason, S., Marr, B., Gray, D. and Neely, A.

(2007), “Towards a definition of a business performance measurement system”, International

Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 27 No. 8, pp. 784-801, available at:

 

https://dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk/bitstream/1826/2789/1/Towards%2520a%2520definition%

2520of%2520business%2520performance%2520measurement%2520system.pdf

Ghosh, S. and Mondal, A. (2009), “Indian software and pharmaceutical sector IC and financial

performance”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 369-388.

Goh, P.C. (2005), “Intellectual capital performance of commercial banks in Malaysia”, Journal of

Intellectual Capital , Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 385-396.

Joshi, M. et al. (2010), “Intellectual capital performance in the banking sector an assessment of

Australian owned banks”, Journal of Human Resource Costing & Accounting, Vol. 14 No. 2,

pp. 151-170. Kamath, B.G. (2008), “Intellectual capital and corporate performance in Indian pharmaceutical

industry”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 684-704.

Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1992), “The balanced scorecard – measures that drive performance”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 70 No. 1, pp. 70-79.

Lerro, A. and Schiuma, G. (2013), “Editorial: intellectual capital assessment practices:

Intellectual

overview and managerial implication”, Journal of Intellectual Capital , Vol. 14 No. 3,

capital

performance

pp. 352-359. Lerro, A., Iacobone, F. and Schiuma, G. (2012), “Knowledge assets assessment strategies:

Downloaded by National Taiwan University of Science and Technology At 02:46 07 December 2014 (PT)

organizational value, processes, approaches and evaluation architectures”, Journal of

 

Knowledge Management, Special Issue , Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 563-575.

 

Molodchik, M. and Bykova, A. (2011), “Applying the VAICTM Model to Russian Industrial Enterprises”, Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Intellectual Capital, University of Nicosia, 18-19 April, pp. 268-277. Morariu, M.C. (2011), “Perspectives on the possibilities companies have to recognise and measure intellectual capital”, Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Intellectual Capital, University of Nicosia , 18-19 April, pp. 278-285. Muhammad, N.M.N. and Ismail, A.K.M. (2009), “Intellectual capital efficiency and firm’s

409

performance: study on Malaysian financial sectors”, International Journal of Economics

 

and Finance , Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 206-212.

 

Prabowo, R. and Soegiono, L. (2010), “Intellectual capital performance and government ownership: an analysis of Indonesian banks”, Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Intellectual Capital Knowledge Management and Organisational Learning, Hong Kong, 11-12 November, pp. 373-380. Pulic, A. (2000), “MVA and VAIC analysis of randomly selected companies from FTSE 250”, available at: www.vaic-on.net/start.htm Rahim, A. et al. (2010), “Intellectual capital efficiency in Malaysian public companies: a longitudinal study”, Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Intellectual Capital Knowledge Management and Organisational Learning, Hong Kong, 11-12 November, pp. 635-643. Schiuma, G. and Lerro, A. (2008), “Editorial: intellectual capital and company’s performance

 

improvement”, Measuring Business Excellence , Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 3-9.

 

Stanciu, M.C. (2008), “Intellectual capital, a challenge to get the ‘True and Fair View’”, Accounting and Management Information Systems , No. 24, pp. 72-87. Sullivan, P.H. (1998), Profiting from Intellectual Capital: Extracting Value from Innovation , John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. Sveiby, K.E. (1997), The New Organisational Wealth: Managing and Measuring Knowledge Based Assets , Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA, The chapter on measuring intangibles, available at: www.sveiby.com/articles/MeasureIntangibleAssets.html Sveiby, K.E. (2010), “Methods for measuring intangible assets”, available at: www.sveiby.com/ articles/IntangibleMethods.htm

 

Tan, H.P. et al. (2007), “Intellectual capital and financial returns of companies”, Journal of

 

Intellectual Capital, Vol. 8, pp. 76-95.

 

Ting, K.W.I. and Lean, H.H. (2009), “Intellectual capital performance of financial institutions in

 

Malaysia”, Journal of Intellectual Capital , Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 588-599.

 

Titova, N. (2011), “Summary on intellectual capital value added (VAIC) and calculated intangible value (CIV) all over the world: lessons to be learnt”, Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Intellectual Capital, University of Nicosia , 18-19 April, pp. 543-554. Tseng, C. and Goo, J.Y. (2005), “Intellectual capital and corporate value in an emerging

 

economy: empirical study of Taiwanese manufacturers”, R&D Management , Vol. 35 No. 2,

 

pp. 187-201. Yu, K.Y. et al. (2010), “An empirical study of the impact of intellectual capital performance on business performance”, Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Intellectual Capital Knowledge Management and Organisational Learning, Hong Kong, 11-12 November, pp. 650-662.

 

Downloaded by National Taiwan University of Science and Technology At 02:46 07 December 2014 (PT)

JIC

15,3

Zeghal, D. and Maaloul, A. (2010), “Analysing value added as an indicator of intellectual capital

and its consequences on company performance”, Journal of Intellectual Capital , Vol. 11

No. 1, pp. 39-60.

410

About the author Dr Cristina Maria Morariu is a Lecturer at the Bucharest University of Economic Studies that finalised her PhD in the field of intellectual capital. Her research interest relate to measurement and disclosure of IC. She chaired a track at ECIC 2012 and her writing has been published in academic journals and presented at international conferences. Dr Cristina Maria Morariu can be contacted at: cristina.m.morariu@gmail.com

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints