Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 11

Knowledge and Process Management

Volume 20 Number 1 pp 111 (2013)


Published online in Wiley Online Library
(www.wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/kpm.1404

Research Article

Intellectual Capital and Financial


Performance in Serbia
Stevo Janosevi1, Vladimir Dzenopoljac1 and Nick Bontis2*
1
Management and Business Economics/Faculty of Economics, University of Kragujevac, Kragujevac, Serbia
2
DeGroote School of Business, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario Canada

Purpose: This research paper explores the impact of intellectual capital (IC) and its various components on nancial
performance of 100 Serbian companies within the real sector (which includes all companies in the Serbian economy
not including banking and insurance).
Design/methodology/approach: The performance measures used were net prot, operating revenues, operating prot,
return on equity (ROE), and return on assets (ROA), whereas IC efciency was measured using value added intellectual
coefcient (VAIC). A multiple-regression model was used to assess the relationship among individual components of
VAIC and nancial performance.
Findings: Net prot, operating revenue, and operating prot are not the consequence of the efcient use of IC in
Serbian companies. On the other hand, human and structural capital affect ROE and ROA, whereas physical capital
inuences ROE.
Research limitations/implications: VAIC is an accounting measure of performance and therefore does not provide an
adequate framework for analyzing synergy between human, structural, and physical capital. In addition, the model
fails to offer adequate analysis for those companies that have negative values for equity and operating prot.
Practical implications: The presented results are especially useful for further research regarding the role and signicance
of IC for Serbian companies. By focusing on adequate IC management and use, the Serbian economys competitiveness
level would increase.
Originality/value: This paper is original as no previous empirical work on IC and its effects on nancial performance
have been carried out among Serbian companies in the real sector. Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

INTRODUCTION to success (Winter and Szulanski, 2002). Prahalad


and Hamel (1990) used the term core competencies
Firm resources represent the most signicant prere- in order to describe a companys ability to learn, to
quisite for achieving and maintaining competitive coordinate diverse production skills, and to incorpo-
advantage. The resource-based view of the rm rate different streams of technology. Compared with
assumes that rms own different types of resources, visible and physical resources, which have nancial
which enable them to develop different strategies bases (e.g., equipment, buildings, land, plants, mate-
(Grant, 1991). Resources that are valuable, rare, rials, and nancial property), intangible resources
inimitable, and non-substitutable have the potential such as expertise, skills, talent, customer relations,
to provide rms with a sustainable competitive corporate culture, reputation, and organizational
advantage (Barney, 1991). Different sets of resources practices are not explicitly visible (Sveiby, 1997).
enable rms to perform differently compared with These non-tangible resources and the ability to
competitors. A detailed analysis of a rms resources exploit them accordingly form the essence of intellec-
will result in a better understanding of the sources of tual capital (IC) (Bontis, 1996).
competitive advantage. The most successful companies tend to have an IC
Within the current knowledge era, resources that that is 10 or 20 times the value of their material assets
do not have a physical form are gaining increasing (Roos et al., 2005). Economic crises in particular high-
interest and are therefore becoming critical factors light the importance of investing in IC; that is, these
investments represent the best way of coping with
todays demanding economic climate (Lev, 2003).
*Correspondence to: Nick Bontis, DeGroote School of Business,
McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
However, despite its importance, determining the
E-mail: nbontis@mcmaster.ca value and effects of IC remains highly challenging

Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.


2 S. Janosevi, V. Dzenopoljac and N. Bontis
(Choo and Bontis, 2002). For this reason, many homogenous. In attempts to dene and categorize IC,
researchers have focused on evaluating IC and estab- its potential benets and its reliance on non-material
lishing its effects on corporate performance. This is resources tend to be stressed. Thus, intellectual
particularly important for the Serbian economy refers to the fact that the source of this capital is
because the current low competitiveness level of its the human mind. Stewart (1997) uses IC to mean
real sector (which includes all companies in Serbian the packaging of useful knowledge while dening
economy, without banking and insurance sector) it as expertise that may be used for value creation.
highlights the need for a proactive strategy. In order Sullivan (2000) focuses on the importance of knowl-
to establish the main initiatives for such a strategy, it edge, which represents the most signicant part of
is vital to examine the practices of the best performers IC and denes IC as knowledge that can be converted
in this sector. As stated by Amit and Schoemaker into value. Edvinsson and Malone (1997) view IC as
(1993), managers are the ones that face the challenge being equal to human capital (HC) plus structural
to identify, develop, protect, and deploy resources capital (SC). They dene SC as hardware, software,
and capabilities in a way that provides the rm with databases, organizational structure, patents, trade-
a sustainable competitive advantage and a superior marks, and other organizational capabilities.
return on capital. This represents the missing link in Much of the extant research on IC has focused on
Serbian companies, which is why the best performers Anglophonic and Scandinavian nations. However,
are analyzed. The Serbian economy has been going this phenomenon has global appeal as evidenced
through a transition since 2000 away from its in studies within Mexico (Trevinyo-Rodriguez and
agricultural and industrial roots and towards a more Bontis, 2007), Portugal (Cabrita et al., 2007; Cabrita
knowledge-based focus. Correspondingly, Serbian and Bontis, 2008), Ireland (ORegan et al., 2001,
managers have been required to adjust their mental 2005), Germany (Kristandl and Bontis, 2007),
models towards a focus on intangible assets. Serbias Australia (Bontis and Girardi, 2000), Malaysia
economy produces GDP per capita of $5233 (com- (Bontis et al., 2000), Egypt (Seleim et al., 2004, 2007),
pared with $48 442 for the USA and $38 818 for the Jordan (Sharabati et al., 2010) and others. Some
UK). In the case of Serbia, it continues to pursue researchers (Malhotra, 2001; Bontis, 2004) point out
growth and efciencies, but by the end of 2011, it still that there is also great interest in IC development at
suffered from an output gap of 30% compared with the national level of analysis. In a comprehensive
its pre-transitional levels (uri cin and Vuksanovi, review of the top global researchers and research
2012, pp. 23). Given Serbias struggle to successfully institutions worldwide, there was not a single repre-
transition into a full-edged knowledge-based sentative from Serbia (Serenko and Bontis, 2004).
economy, its market makes for a fervent research Furthermore, Cabrilo and her colleagues (Cabrilo
setting. et al., 2009) argue that there is a lack of awareness of
The present paper examines the relationship the importance and the nature of IC and its measur-
between IC and the nancial performance of 100 com- ing methods in Serbia.
panies that achieved the greatest net prots in 2010 in Over the years, authors have converged on a
the Serbian economy. By utilizing an independently simple framework for IC that includes well-known
published high-prole sample of organizations, we models and measures (Bontis, 1998, 1999; Andriessen,
aim to show an alternative (intangible) perspective 2004). An often-used synonym for IC is intangible
on how well these same rms are performing. assets. Logically, this hidden value could be viewed
The paper is presented in sections that focus on from the standpoint of a balance sheets assets. The
specically dened research objectives. Empirical very meaning of intangible indicates something
research provides results for correlation analysis, that is not possible to touch, something that is barely
and two regression models, generated from analyzing describable and often difcult to disclose (Bontis,
the data in nancial reports. The efciency of use of 2003; Kristandl and Bontis, 2007; Curado et al., 2011).
invested capital (both intellectual and physical) is International Accounting Standard 38 (2004)
quantied through the Value Added (VA) Intellectual denes intangible assets as non-monetary assets
Coefcient (VAIC). Financial performance measures with no identiable physical form. In addition to
used in the research are net prot, operating prot, intangible assets, further synonyms for IC include
operating revenue, return on equity (ROE), and non-material resources, intangible capital, intan-
return on assets (ROA). gible values, and intellectual property (Kaufmann
and Schneider, 2004; Choong, 2008).
Value created by IC is indirect, potential, and
contextual. IC rarely affects nancial results directly,
LITERATURE REVIEW and the effects of investing in IC are delayed and
uncertain. The value created is contextual because
Denition and the nature of IC
it depends on its t with the strategy used, as
The academic eld of IC is growing rapidly (Bontis the modern business environment demands that
and Serenko, 2009; Serenko and Bontis, 2009). IC is the strategy should be positioned at the center of the
dened in a variety of ways because it is not management process. Consequently, for value to be

Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Know. Process Mgmt. 20, 111 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/kpm
Intellectual Capital in Serbia 3
created, IC has to be linked to strategy (Kaplan and IC measurement
Norton, 2004), and different forms of IC must
Today, the measurement of IC and its inuence on a
be interrelated and connected to the companys
companys nancial and market performance are
tangible assets. It is through these links that the value
crucial topics. According to Choong (2008) and Dess
of IC can increase further.
et al. (2006), the measure of IC is the difference
There are various approaches to dening and cate-
between a companys market and book value.
gorizing IC. Sveiby (1997) states that IC is made up of
Companies that focus mainly on physical assets have
employee competencies, internal structure, and exter-
a lower market-to-book ratio and vice versa. How-
nal structure. Employee competencies are the abilities
ever, this measure of IC has certain disadvantages.
of employees in terms of their knowledge, skills, and
Firstly, for companies not listed on a stock exchange,
education. Internal structure entails patents, concepts,
the value of IC cannot be determined. Secondly,
processes, technologies under development, IT,
because the measure is aggregate by nature, it is
administration systems, and corporate culture. Exter-
impossible to assess the individual components of
nal structure includes relations with customers and
IC and their contribution to value creation. Thirdly,
suppliers, brand, and company reputation. A similar
the difference in the equation may be the result of
concept is used when categorizing IC into HC, SC,
many external factors to IC. For example, underva-
and relational capital (Bontis, 2001; MERITUM, 2002;
lued or overvalued positions of tangible assets on
Seetharaman et al., 2004). Pulic (1998) analyzed IC
the balance sheet may inuence the market value of
from the perspective of its contribution to creating
stock and even market capitalization, directly affect-
added value. In this manner, he argued that IC poten-
ing the value of IC determined in this way. Fourthly,
tial of a company was derived from efcient use of
the ongoing economic crisis and its impact on stock
HC and SC, whereas the overall efciency in creating
prices represent further limitations to this measure
added value comes from combined efciency of IC
because the economic crisis has, in many successful
and physical/nancial capital.
companies, induced a meltdown of IC measured
Besides knowledge, HC also includes skills, creativ-
in this way. However, research (Lev, 2003) shows that
ity, talent, ability to learn, responsibility, dedication,
the majority of S&P500 companies did not invest
enthusiasm, and level of motivation. SC includes the
signicantly in the eld of research and development,
management processes, corporate strategy and plans,
while investments in tangible assets increased.
software, databases, organizational structure, patents,
Fifthly, the limitations of using this measure become
trademarks, and every other organizational capability
particularly visible in newly established capital
that supports employee productivity (EP). Relational
markets. For instance, over the 3-day trading period
capital is actually external capital, which involves
ending on 11 August 2011, the BELEX15 index on
numerous external relationships with various
the Serbian stock exchange dropped 17%.
stakeholders (customers, suppliers, creditors, and
investors) and their perceptions of the company. One empirical study (Dess et al., 2006) examined
Examples of relational capital include brand, reputa- the M/B ratios of 3500 US companies and found
tion, customer relations, partnerships with suppliers, that in 1978 there was no difference between the
agreements, licenses, sales channels, capacities for two values (on aggregate book value was at the
negotiation, and networking. However, Pulic (1998) level of 95% of market value). Twenty years later,
used HC efciency (HCE) and SC efciency (SCE) as book value was only 28% of market value. In 1982,
elements of IC efciency (ICE), as a whole. out of every $100 invested in S&P500 companies
Conventional nancial accounting and related share purchase, approximately $62.3 went to
performance measures do not align with the nature tangible assets. Ten years later (1992), only $37.9
of the contemporary business environment, in out of $100 was spent on material resources, and
which IC creates the majority of the value. Financial in 1999 this amount had dropped to just $16. More
statements and business ratios based on these recent research studies (Lev, 2001; Kaplan and
statements do not supply sufcient relevant and Norton, 2004; Cardoza, 2006) indicate that IC makes
timely information for adequate understanding of up around 7585% of a companys total market
the impact of IC on future value creation. The value (Figure 1). In addition, data on S&P500
nature and potential of IC demands a new set of companies from the mid 1980s reveal a signicant
performance measures. Accordingly, the measure- increase in the book value of IC compared with each
ment and valuation of IC and its disclosure within companys total book and market value. From 1975
nancial statements have become increasingly to 2005, the proportion of total assets comprising the
prominent, with the aim of improving the book value of IC rose from 1.9% to 43.2%, while the
understanding on how IC contributes to the value IC book value proportion of the market capitalization
creation process. The challenge faced by the of companies increased from 1.6% to 15.5% (every
accounting profession is to nd a suitable model 10 years, this share doubled) (Cardoza, 2006).
for embedding the IC elements into nancial Many attempts have been made to nd a useful
statements (Lev and Zarowin, 1999; Lev, 2003; model for measuring the size and impact of IC on
Chareonsuk and Chansa-ngavej, 2008). overall company performance. One early attempt

Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Know. Process Mgmt. 20, 111 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/kpm
4 S. Janosevi, V. Dzenopoljac and N. Bontis

which are not included as inputs in this model.


HCE is therefore calculated as

HCE VA=HC

Here, HC denotes total salaries and wages during


one scal year. In this manner, the model describes
the relative contribution of human resources to the
creation of VA. The next component of IC, SC, repre-
sents everything that stays in the ofce when employ-
Source: Ocean Tomo, 2011 ees go home. SC comprises hardware, software,
Figure 1 Growth in intellectual capital proportion of the market
organizational structure, patents, trademarks, and
value of S&P500 companies. Source: Ocean Tomo, 2011 all other factors that support or increase EP (Bontis,
2001). SCE is calculated by

SCE SC=VA
in this area can be seen in the work of Edvinsson
(1997), who developed a model for measuring IC SC represents the second component of a companys
(known as the Skandia Navigator) while employed IC. The aforementioned equation indicates that SCE
by the Swedish insurance company Skandia. is inversely related to HCE. ICE is obtained by
Methods for measuring IC can be categorized into summing the partial efciencies of HC and SC:
four large groups according to Roos and his
colleagues (Roos et al., 2005): (i) direct IC methods; ICE HCE
(ii) market capitalization methods; (iii) ROA methods; SCE
and (iv) scorecard methods.
The most important direct techniques for measuring Finally, the physical capital component, or capital
IC are the technology broker (Brooking, 1996), employed efciency (CEE), is derived from the ratio
citation-weighted patents (Bontis, 1996), and the of VA to a companys net assets:
value explorer (Andriessen and Tiessen, 2000). Of
market capitalization methods, the most signicant CEE VA=CE
are Tobins q (Stewart, 1997) and M/B value (Stewart,
1997; Luthy, 1998). The most recognizable ROA tech- Here, capital employed (CE) is the capital already
niques are the economic VA method (Stewart, 1997), invested in a company, that is, its net assets. In order
calculated intangible value (Stewart, 1997; Luthy, to enable a comparison of overall value creation
1998), and VAIC (Pulic, 1998). Widely known efciency, the two indicators need to be added
scorecard models include the Skandia Navigator together as
(Edvinsson and Malone, 1997), Value Chain
Scoreboard (Lev, 2001), Intangible Assets Monitor VAIC ICE CEE
(Sveiby, 1997), and Balanced Scorecard (Kaplan and
Norton, 1996). VAIC is as described earlier. This aggregated
The VAIC model was developed and implemented indicator allows us to understand a companys
by Ante Pulic who has afliations with the University overall efciency and indicates its intellectual ability.
of Zagreb and the University of Graz (Pulic, 1998, Put simply that VAIC measures how much new value
2004). Basically, it is a calculation of VA, as an has been created per invested monetary unit. A
indicator of a companys efcient use of IC. The basic higher value for this coefcient indicates higher value
idea behind this approach lies in determining the creation using the companys resources.
contribution of all company resources (human, Despite criticism, chiey put forward by Andriessen
structural, and physical) to the creation of VA, which (2004), who suggests that the models basic
is calculated by assumptions may lead to dissatisfying results, the
VAIC methodology is becoming increasingly accepted
by researchers as an adequate indicator of a com-
VA OUT IN
panys efcient use of IC. Moreover, the VAIC method
was accepted by the former UK Department for
Outputs (OUT) represent total sales realized on the Business, Enterprise, and Regulatory Reform and
market. Inputs (IN) entail all the costs of managing Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills as
the company, except for those related to human a measure of companies IC, thus contributing greatly
resources, which are viewed in this model as an to the models validity (Zghal and Maaloul, 2010).
investment. Further steps involve calculating intellec- The most signicant disadvantage of the VAIC
tual and physical capital efciency coefcients. model is that it is calculated using the nancial
A companys IC comprises HC and SC. Calculation statements of companies, which implies that the
of HCE starts with employee salaries and wages, coefcient is a measure of value created in the
past and not that of value creation potential.
Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Know. Process Mgmt. 20, 111 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/kpm
Intellectual Capital in Serbia 5
Another criticism (which also applies to other IC time (2003), in the same stage of transition that the
valuation models) entails the inability of the model Serbian economy is experiencing today. Hypotheses
to incorporate synergistic effects realized through presented in Firer and Williams paper correspond
interactions between different components of IC. to some extent to those developed in the present
VAIC methodology clearly depicts the contribution study. Further research, undertaken in Taiwan, aimed
of each component of IC to value creation. How- o provide insights into the relationship between IC
ever, in practice, elements of IC interact, and there- and market value and the nancial performance of
fore, it is not possible to calculate accurately the listed companies (Chen et al., 2005). Another interest-
contribution of each component to the creation of ing study (Goh, 2005) presented the level of IC in
VA. For example, advancements in IT (SC) may domestic and foreign banks in Malaysian territory.
lead to increases in EP (HC). In addition, the model Gohs research found that domestic banks were
fails to offer adequate analysis of the creation of generally less efcient at IC exploitation. A similar
VA for those companies that have negative values study was conducted on Egyptian software compa-
for equity and operating prot. In these cases, VA nies to analyze how HC, as a part of IC, affected the
and all the elements of VAIC (HCE, SCE, and organizational performance of selected companies
CEE) would be negative as well, which would lead (Seleim et al., 2007). Another interesting study
to useless analysis (Chu et al., 2011). involved Malaysias entire nancial sector (Ting and
Chen et al. (2005) argued that one of the Lean, 2009), with the aim of determining the impact
drawbacks of Pulics approach is that it does not of IC on nancial performance in the sector from
incorporate innovative and relational capital in its 1999 to 2007. Ting and Lean chose to analyze the
equation and that it needs updating that would nancial sector after assuming its heavy dependency
improve this. In the aforementioned critique, the on IC performance.
authors included R&D expenditures as an addi-
tional measure of IC performance but still omitted
relational capital, which is the most difcult element RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND
to measure. Investment in R&D in Serbia as a HYPOTHESES
percentage of GDP was only 0.47% in 2010. It is
important to mention that these investments are The present research has two basic objectives. The
nanced almost entirely by the public sector. rst is to determine whether there is interdependence
Because only 31% of analyzed companies had between the amount of IC (measured by VAIC) and
R&D expenditures in 2010 and because they lack the nancial performance of selected companies from
proper relationships with stakeholders, omitting the real sector. The second basic objective is to
relational capital will not signicantly affect the analyze empirically the role of each component of
results of this particular research study. IC on certain nancial performance measures.
Financial performance measures used here are net
prot, operating revenue, operating prot, ROE,
and ROA. The choice of these measures was made
IC and nancial performance
according to the current situation in Serbia, where
A number of studies (Bontis and Fitz-enz, 2002; business success measurement still heavily relies on
Pulic, 2002; Firer and Williams, 2003; Kujansivu traditional measures of corporate performance.
and Lonnqvist, 2004; Mavridis, 2004; Chen et al., These two objectives are tested with the following
2005; Goh, 2005, Senz, 2005; Cabrita and Vaz, hypotheses, which are natural extensions of the
2006; Shiu, 2006; Bramhandkar et al., 2007; Kamath, positive relationships realized in various previous
2007; Seleim et al., 2007; Yalama and Coskun, 2007; studies:
Saengchan, 2008; Wang, 2008; Ting and Lean, 2009;
H1. Serbian companies with higher VAIC tend to
Zghal and Maaloul, 2010) have dealt with the
have higher net prots
impact of IC on company nancial performance.
These studies mostly reveal a positive correlation The standpoint for this claim is the expectation that
between the value of IC components and corporate if a company is more efcient in use of HC, SC, and
performance. physical/nancial capital, it tends to create higher
In order to implement comparative analysis, we net prots. This main hypothesis can be divided into
relied on several studies with similar research three derived hypotheses saying that companies from
hypotheses and methodologies but within different Serbia that are more efcient in using HC (H1a),
country settings. Firer and Williams (2003) conducted SC (H1b), and CE (H1c) tend to achieve higher net
research on 75 companies listed on the Johannesburg prots.
Stock Exchange. The companies were in industries
H2. Serbian companies with higher VAIC tend to
expected to be characterized by high volumes of
have higher operating revenue
investments in IC and dependence on the efcient
exploitation of IC. Their study is particularly interest- Operating revenue is expected to be inuenced by
ing because the economy of South Africa was, at the the elements of VAIC, as well. If a company uses

Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Know. Process Mgmt. 20, 111 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/kpm
6 S. Janosevi, V. Dzenopoljac and N. Bontis
its HC more efciently than its competitors do, it is economy in Republic of Serbia in 2010, published
expected to generate increased sales (H2a). In by the Agency for Business Registers (2011). The
addition, higher operating revenues can be achieved study also used data drawn from the nancial state-
by better exploitation of the elements of SC (organi- ments of each of these companies, gathered by the
zational structure, databases, IT, etc.) and CE (H2b authors. Software SPSS 20.0 (IBM Corp, Armonk,
and H2c, respectively). NY, USA) was used to analyze the data statistically.
The study sample comprises of companies of
H3. Serbian companies with higher VAIC tend to
varying legal forms and size. Companies with
have higher operating prot
limited liability (Ltd.) and corporations make up
If the elements of VAIC were nurtured adequately, 94% of the sample. Some 92% of the companies are
in terms of investments and application, the compa- large, 5% medium, and only 3% small enterprises.
nies in Serbia would generate higher operating These 100 companies together realized 38% of total
prot, which is often used as a measure of corporate net prot of the Serbian economy. In terms of the
success. This implies that companies with higher whole economy, the 100 most protable companies
HCE, SCE, and CEE would increase their operating make up only 0.1% of all entities in Serbia. The
prots (H3a, H3b, and H3c, respectively). majority of the companies in the sample are in the
manufacturing (46%), wholesale and retail (21%),
H4. Serbian companies with higher VAIC tend to
trafc and warehousing (6%), and construction
have higher ROE
(6%) sectors.
Traditional measure of corporate performance, The research model employed involves depen-
such as ROE, is also expected to be inuenced by dent and independent variables. The independent
intellectual and physical capital. The main hypoth- variables are VAIC and its sub-components: HCE,
esis is therefore explained also through positive SCE, and CEE. Conversely, the dependent variables
impact of HC (H4a), SC (H4b), and physical (H4c) selected are net prot, operating revenue, operating
capital on ROE. prot, ROE, and ROA:
H5. Serbian companies with higher VAIC tend to ROE is calculated by dividing net prot by the
have higher ROA book value of average stockholders equity.
ROA is the ratio of pre-tax income to the
The nal hypothesis views ROA as a function of
companys total assets.
VAIC and its components. If a company invests
properly in HC, it is expected that there will be Data were analyzed by presenting descriptive
higher returns on assets (H5a). In addition, SC statistics and by applying statistical methods of
would have positive impact on ROA (H5b). correlation and regression. Because certain compo-
Adequate use of physical and nancial resources nents of VAIC affect nancial performance by different
should positively affect ROA, as well (H5c). amounts and in different ways, multiple regressions
Figure 2 shows the conceptual model used in were used to answer the question: To what extent
determining the relationship between IC and nan- and in what way do HCE, SCE, and CEE inuence
cial performance. selected indicators of corporate success?

METHODOLOGY AND DATA SOURCES FINDINGS

The current research study used a sample of 100 Descriptive statistics


Serbian companies from the real sector that had The descriptive statistics is shown in Table 1, which
achieved the highest net prots in 2010 according includes minimum values, maximum values, values
to data in Report on the functioning of the for means for all variables, and standard deviation
for each variable. The data refer to the analyzed
year of 2010.

Correlation analysis
Table 2 presents the results of correlation analysis.
They indicate a week correlation between CEE and
operating revenue (correlation coefcient 0.274). In
case of operating prot, there is strong correlation
Figure 2 Conceptual model of the research. ROE, return on with HCE (correlation coefcient 0.514) and VAIC as
equity; ROA, return on assets; HCE, human capital efciency; aggregate measure (0.511), and moderate correlation
SCE, structural capital efciency; CEE, capital employed with SCE (correlation coefcient 0.361) and CEE
efciency; VAIC, value added intellectual coefcient (0.360). Values for the correlation coefcient are

Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Know. Process Mgmt. 20, 111 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/kpm
Intellectual Capital in Serbia 7

Table 1 Descriptive statistics

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Net prot 100.00 3 404 693.16 156 252 722.80 11 388 864.55 21 547 432.87
Operating revenue 100.00 0.00 1 607 037 115.33 138 497 316.35 232 848 134.52
Operating prot 100.00 10 040 578.89 248 249 344.54 14 329 374.43 32 481 709.25
ROE 97.00 0.01 5.19 0.37 0.62
ROA 100.00 0.00 0.70 0.13 0.12
HCE 94.00 1.95 65.37 4.70 7.17
SCE 97.00 3.07 1.61 0.62 0.50
CEE 97.00 0.05 16.07 0.69 1.66
VAIC 94.00 2.82 2006.97 42.90 253.98
Valid N (listwise) 92.00

ROE, return on equity; ROA, return on assets; HCE, human capital efciency; SCE, structural capital efciency; CEE, capital employed
efciency; VAIC, value added intellectual coefcient.

Table 2 Results of correlation analysis

HCE SCE CEE VAIC

Spearmans rho NP Correlation coefcient 0.159 0.152 0.013 0.182


Sig. (2-tailed) 0.125 0.136 0.902 0.080
N 94 97 97 94
OR Correlation coefcient 0.109 0.060 0.274** 0.089
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.298 0.560 0.007 0.395
N 94 97 97 94
OP Correlation coefcient 0.514** 0.361** 0.360** 0.511**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
N 94 97 97 94
ROE Correlation coefcient 0.278** 0.216* 0.529** 0.409**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.007 0.036 0.000 0.000
N 92 94 97 94
ROA Correlation coefcient 0.102 0.089 0.235* 0.165
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.327 0.384 0.021 0.113
N 94 97 97 94

*Signicance level a = 0.05.


**Signicance level a = 0.01.
NP, net prot; OR, operating revenue; OP, operating prot; ROE, return on equity; ROA, return on assets; HCE, human capital efciency;
SCE, structural capital efciency; CEE, capital employed efciency; VAIC, value added intellectual coefcient.
Items in bold are provided by SPSS.

interpreted according to Cohen (1988). ROE correlates Table 3 shows that HC, SC, or physical capital do
with all of the elements of VAIC. ROE correlates with not signicantly inuence net prot. If we look at
HCE and SCE in a weak manner. There is moderate the value of R2, we can conclude that there is little
correlation with VAIC but strong correlation with causality between net prot and HCE, SCE, and
physical capital. The last measure we used in terms CEE coefcients because only 0.4% of changes in
of corporate performance, ROA, expresses weak net prot may be contributing to variations in these
correlation only in the case of CEE. The presented coefcients. As a test for multicollinearity, the
results for correlation analysis are the basics for more variance ination factor was used. According to
thorough inspecting the issue involving multiple- Myers (1990), variance ination factor must be below
regression analysis. 10 in order for the statistical model to be relevant.
Where the dependent variable is operating
revenue, the conclusions are similar to those reached
Multiple linear regression analysis where the dependent variable was net prot. The
Because it is possible to separate VAIC into compo- model explains only 0.5% of total changes in operat-
nents, particular analytical values utilize multiple ing revenue, and there is no signicant correlation
linear regressions to determine the impact of certain between operating revenue and HCE, SCE, and
components on selected performance measures. The CEE (Table 4).
elements of IC used in this research model are HCE Table 5 presents the results of multiple linear
and SCE. Tables 37 present the results of this regression when the dependent variable is operating
regression analysis. prot. In this case, only 2.4% of changes in the value

Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Know. Process Mgmt. 20, 111 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/kpm
8 S. Janosevi, V. Dzenopoljac and N. Bontis
Table 3 Results of linear multiple-regression analysis of operating prot may be the effect of changes in
(dependent variable net prot) VAIC components (R2 = 0.024). As in the case of net
prot, there is no causality between IC components
Variable b T Level of signicance VIF and the analyzed dependent variable.
The data from Table 6 show the interdependence
HCE 0.057 0.521 0.604 1.051
SCE 0.032 0.293 0.770 1.054 of ROE and components of VAIC. The R2 value is
CEE 0.009 0.082 0.935 1.004 0.628, which indicates that changes in ROE value
can be explained by changes in HCE, SCE, and
R2 = 0.004; F = 0.104; Signicance = 0.957. CEE values in 62.8% of the cases, which makes the
HCE, human capital efciency; SCE, structural capital efciency; model very t. The statistically most signicant
CEE, capital employed efciency; VIF, variance ination factor.
relation is between ROE and CEE, and then between
ROE and HCE, whereas the relationship between
Table 4 Results of linear multiple-regression analysis ROE and SCE is least signicant.
(dependent variable operating revenue) Table 7 indicates the relationship between
independent variables HCE, SCE, and CEE and
Variable b T Level of signicance VIF the dependent variable ROA. The model explains
25.5% of changes in ROA. Regression analysis
HCE 0.052 0.475 0.636 1.051 results point to the conclusion that ROA is signi-
SCE 0.060 0.552 0.582 1.054 cantly inuenced by efcient use of SC and HC,
CEE 0.004 0.037 0.971 1.004
while CEE does not affect this measure. Table 8
R2 = 0.005; F = 0.147; Signicance = 0.931.
summarizes the results of regression analysis.
HCE, human capital efciency; SCE, structural capital efciency; With all of the aforementioned ndings, the
CEE, capital employed efciency; VIF, variance ination factor. following can be concluded:
Correlation analysis conrmed that there is linear
t between
Table 5 Results of linear multiple-regression analysis
(dependent variable operating prot) operating revenue and CEE,
operating prot and all of the elements of
Variable b T Level of signicance VIF VAIC,
ROE and all of the elements of VAIC, and
HCE 0.035 0.328 0.743 1.051 ROA and CEE.
SCE 0.083 0.771 0.443 1.054
CEE 0.128 1.217 0.227 1.004 Results of multiple-regression analysis conrmed
hypotheses H4a, H5a, H4b, H5b, and H4c.
R2 = 0.024; F = 0.736; Signicance = 0.533. The statistically most signicant correlation is
HCE, human capital efciency; SCE, structural capital efciency;
CEE, capital employed efciency; VIF, variance ination factor. that between ROE and CEE (hypothesis H4c)
and between ROA and SCE (hypothesis H5b),
the value of b is 0.766 and 0.490, respectively,
Table 6 Results of linear multiple-regression analysis with a high signicance level in both cases.
(dependent variable ROE) Multiple-regression analysis failed to conrm
hypotheses H1a, H2a, H3a, H1b, H2b, H3b,
Variable b T Level of signicance VIF H1c, H2c, H3c, and H5c
HCE 0.191 2.868 0.005 1.051
SCE 0.160 2.397 0.019 1.054
CEE 0.766 11.767 0.000 1.004 DISCUSSION
R2 = 0.628; F = 49.507; Signicance = 0.000. The importance and potential of IC as a factor of
HCE, human capital efciency; SCE, structural capital efciency;
CEE, capital employed efciency; VIF, variance ination factor. competitive advantage is undisputable. Developed
market economies base their competitiveness on
knowledge, information, commercial innovativeness,
Table 7 Results of linear multiple regression analysis corporate strategies, and the sophistication of their
(dependent variable ROA) business models, and far less on natural resources
Variable b T Level of signicance VIF and cheap labor. The Lisbon Treaty represents efforts
made by the European Union to strengthen their
HCE 0.268 2.838 0.006 1.051 member states competitiveness based on IC. A
SCE 0.490 5.190 0.000 1.054 European Commission (2010) document entitled
CEE 0.013 0.143 0.887 1.004 Europe 2020European Strategy for Smart,
Sustainable, and Inclusive Growth states that devel-
R2 = 0.255; F = 10.050; Signicance = 0.000. opment based on knowledge and innovation must be
HCE, human capital efciency; SCE, structural capital efciency;
CEE, capital employed efciency; VIF, variance ination factor. a key pillar of future smart growth of European

Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Know. Process Mgmt. 20, 111 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/kpm
Intellectual Capital in Serbia 9

Table 8 Summary of research results found by regression analysis


Independent Dependent Level of Hypothesis
variable variable R2 b signicance Hypothesis conrmed

VAIC Net prot 0.000 0.008 0.939 H1 No


Operating revenue 0.001 0.072 0.488 H2 No
Operating prot 0.005 0.025 0.808 H3 No
ROE 0.001 0.037 0.722 H4 No
ROA 0.023 0.151 0.146 H5 No
HCE Net prot 0.004 0.054 0.604 H1a No
Operating revenue 0.005 0.052 0.636 H2a No
Operating prot 0.024 0.035 0.743 H3a No
ROE 0.628 0.191 0.005 H4a Yes
ROA 0.255 0.268 0.006 H5a Yes
SCE Net prot 0.004 0.293 0.770 H1b No
Operating revenue 0.005 0.060 0.582 H2b No
Operating prot 0.024 0.083 0.443 H3b No

ROA 0.255 0.490 0.000 H5b Yes


CEE Net prot 0.004 0.082 0.935 H1c No
Operating revenue 0.005 0.004 0.971 H2c No
Operating prot 0.024 0.128 0.227 H3c No
ROE 0.628 0.766 0.000 H4c Yes
ROA 0.255 0.013 0.887 H5c No

ROE, return on equity; ROA, return on assets; HCE, human capital efciency; SCE, structural capital efciency; CEE, capital employed
efciency; VAIC, value added intellectual coefcient.
Items in bold are provided by SPSS.

Union member states. Serbia is currently falling and interdependent with the measures indicating ef-
behind in the development of a knowledge-based cient use of IC and physical capital invested in business.
and innovation-based society. Because the competi-
tiveness of the Serbian economy is low (according to
the World Economic Forums index of global compe-
titiveness in 2011, Serbia is placed 95th) and as the CONCLUSIONS
Serbian real sector is currently in a state of crisis, the
research results presented in this paper are logical The measurement and valuation of IC and its impact
and unsurprising. They indicate clearly that IC has a on companies nancial and market performance are
very small or insignicant impact on the nancial crucial issues and should not be thought of as trivial
performance of the 100 companies with the highest tasks. Just as corporate performance cannot be
net prots of 2010. Consequently, the level of IC is analyzed using solely one measure, it is also impossi-
the limiting factor in growth in competitiveness. This ble to assess IC from only one perspective. The VAIC
is particularly relevant today, when investing in IC is coefcient is only one attempt of many to nd a
the only real way of progressing business during suitable model for estimating the level of IC and its
times of economic crises. contribution to corporate performance. Its basic
The results of correlation analysis indicate a mod- advantage (simplicity of calculation and ease of use)
erate positive correlation between CEE and operating is its main limitation. The main problem is in measur-
revenue. In case of operating prot, the situation is a ing the contribution of something that is not physical
bit different. Operating prot correlates signicantly and cannot be easily quantied. Even if IC could be
with all the elements of VAIC, as well as ROE. In clearly dened and presented, the key issue is that
the case of ROA, there is a moderate correlation with the value created by IC is indirect. The interaction
CEE. As revealed by multiple-correlation analysis, between different forms of IC and with other forms of
efcient use of HC and SC signicantly affects ROE material assets should therefore be borne in mind as
and ROA, whereas CEE inuences ROE, only. With the effects of IC tend to be delayed and unpredictable.
this being said, we argue the validity of net prot, Another important limitation relates to the inability
operating revenue, and operating prot as measures of the model to assess companies future perform-
of corporate performance in Serbian companies. This ance. Modern measures of performance start with
argument raises the question: Are these companies cash ow rather than net prot. In other words, VAIC
really the best ones in Serbia, in terms of corporate does not provide an adequate framework with which
success? Relative measures of corporate performance to integrate nancial measures of performance with
are better indicator of success and therefore must be IC as a driver of future performance.
taken into account as well. This gains signicance The research results serve as a starting point
especially when we see that these measures are related for better comprehension of the Serbian economy.

Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Know. Process Mgmt. 20, 111 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/kpm
10 S. Janosevi, V. Dzenopoljac and N. Bontis
The results indicate that corporate success is still Bontis N. 2004. National Intellectual Capital Index: a
achieved through intensive application of nancial United Nations initiative for the Arab region. Journal
of Intellectual Capital 5(1): 1339.
and physical capital, which cannot be sustained in
Bontis N, Fitz-enz J. 2002. Intellectual capital ROI: a causal
the long run. In addition, these results should point map of human capital antecedents and consequents.
to the fact that Serbian companies must make a Journal of Intellectual Capital 3(3): 223247.
signicant turnaround in terms of focusing on HC Bontis N, Girardi J. 2000. Teaching knowledge management
and SC. and intellectual capital lessons: an empirical examination
Firm protability is signicantly affected by the of the TANGO simulation. International Journal of Technol-
ogy Management 20(5/6/7/8): 545555.
levels of HC even thought its substantiveness is still Bontis N, Serenko A. 2009. A follow-up ranking of academic
slight. We believe that this relationship will have a journals. Journal of Knowledge Management 13(1): 1626.
much higher magnitude of strength in the future. Bontis N, Keow W, Richardson S. 2000. Intellectual capital
ROE and ROA are signicantly affected by the and the nature of business in Malaysia. Journal of
levels of HCE and SCE, but that level of impact is Intellectual Capital 1(1): 85100.
Bramhandkar A, Erickson S, Astrlebee I. 2007. Intellectual
still low, according to the values of b, and needs capital and organizational performance: an empirical
further attention and improvement. study of the pharmaceutical industry. Electronic Journal
Apart from the abovementioned limitations of of Knowledge Management 5(4): 357362.
VAIC, the results of our empirical study undertaken Brooking A. 1996. Intellectual Capital: Core Assets for the Third
Millennium Enterprise. Thomson Business Press: London.
in Serbia are a good basis for further research to
Cabrilo S, Uzelac Z, Cosic I. 2009. Researching indicators
improve the understanding of the impact of IC on of organizational intellectual capital in Serbia. Journal
nancial performance and corporate success. One of Intellectual Capital 10(4): 573587.
possibility is to include more variables (e.g., different Cabrita M, Bontis N. 2008. Intellectual capital and
nonnancial measures of performance). By doing business performance in the Portuguese banking
industry. International Journal of Technology Management
this, the scope and validity of the research could be
43(1/2/3): 212237.
increased. Another route would be to conduct the Cabrita M, Vaz J. 2006. Intellectual capital and value crea-
research on a larger sample, which could have a tion: evidence from the Portuguese banking industry.
different structure and be more generalizable. It The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management 4(1): 1120.
may also be interesting to analyze the impact of IC Cabrita M, Landeiro de Vaz J, Bontis N. 2007. Modelling
on nancial performance within and between the creation of value from intellectual capital: a
Portuguese banking perspective. International Journal of
particular industries or between companies, for Knowledge and Learning 3(2/3): 266280.
instance, of different sizes or legal forms or with Cardoza K.2006. The power of intangible assets: an analysis
different market positions or proportions of total of the S&P 500. Les Nouvelles, March, 37.
revenues as export revenues. Chareonsuk C, Chansa-ngavej C. 2008. Intangible assets
management framework for long-term nancial
performance. Industrial Management & Data Systems
108(6): 812828.
REFERENCES Chen M, Cheng S, Hwang Y. 2005. An empirical investiga-
tion of the relationship between intellectual capital and
Agency for Business Registers. 2011. Report on functioning rms market value and nancial performance. Journal of
the economy of Republic of Serbia in 2010comparative Intellectual Capital 6(2): 159176.
data from nancial statements 2009 and 2010, June, Choo CW, Bontis N. 2002. The Strategic Management of
Belgrade. Intellectual Capital and Organizational Knowledge. Oxford
Amit R, Schoemaker PJH. 1993. Strategic assets and orga- University Press: New York.
nizational rent. Strategic Management Journal 14: 3346. Choong KK. 2008. Intellectual capital: denitions,
Andriessen D. 2004. Making Sense of Intellectual Capital. categorization and reporting models. Journal of Intellectual
Butterworth-Heinemann: Burlington, MA. Capital 9(4): 609638.
Andriessen D, Tiessen R. 2000. Weightless Wealth: Find Chu SKW, Chan KH, Wu WWY. 2011. Charting
Your Real Value in a Future of Intangibles Assets. Financial intellectual capital performance of the gateway to
Times Prentice Hall: London. China. Journal of Intellectual Capital 12(2): 249276.
Barney JB. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competi- Cohen J. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral
tive advantage. Journal of Management 17(1): 99120. Sciences, (2nd ed.) Lawrence Erlbaum Associates:
Bontis N. 1996. Theres a price on your head: managing Hillsdale, NJ.
intellectual capital strategically. Business Quarterly, Curado C, Henriques L, Bontis N. 2011. Intellectual
Summer, 4047. capital disclosure payback. Management Decision 49(7):
Bontis N. 1998. Intellectual capital: an exploratory study 10801098.
that develops measures and models. Management Dess GG, Lumpkin GT, Eisner AB. 2006. Strategic Manage-
Decision 36(2): 6376. ment (Text and Cases). McGrawHill International
Bontis N. 1999. Managing organizational knowledge by Edition, Boston.
diagnosing intellectual capital: framing and advancing uri cin D, Vuksanovi I. 2012. Isnt output more important
the state of the eld. International Journal of Technology than ination in impotent economy: Serbias economic
Management 18(5/6/7/8): 433462. policies revision. Ekonomika preduzea, February, 1332.
Bontis N. 2001. Assessing knowledge assets: a review of Edvinsson L. 1997. Developing intellectual capital at
the models used to measure intellectual capital. Interna- Skandia. Long Range Planning 30(3): 366373.
tional Journal of Management Reviews 3(1): 4160. Edvinsson L, Malone M. 1997. Intellectual Capital: Realizing
Bontis N. 2003. Intellectual capital disclosure in Canadian Your Companys True Value by Funding Its Hidden Brain-
corporations. Journal of Human Resource Costing and power. Harper Business: New York, NY.
Accounting 7(1/2): 920.

Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Know. Process Mgmt. 20, 111 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/kpm
Intellectual Capital in Serbia 11
European Commission. 2010. Europe 2020a European strategy Pulic A. 1998. Measuring the performance of intellectual
for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Available at: potential in knowledge economy. Paper presented at
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri= the 2nd McMaster World Congress on Measuring and
COM:2010:2020:FIN:EN:PDF, (accessed 28 January 2013). Managing Intellectual Capital by the Austrian Team
Firer S, Williams . 2003. Intellectual capital and for Intellectual Potential, 1998, Hamilton.
traditional measures of corporate performance. Journal Pulic A. Value creation efciency of Croatian banks 1996
of Intellectual Capital 4(3): 348360. 2000. 2002 February. Available at: www.vaic-on.net
Goh PC. 2005. Intellectual capital performance of (accessed 10 August 2010).
commercial banks in Malaysia. Journal of Intellectual Pulic A. 2004. Intellectual capital: does it create or destroy
Capital 6(3): 385396. value? Measuring Business Excellence 8(1): 6268.
Grant RM. 1991. The resource-based theory of competitive Roos G, Pike S, Fernstrm L. 2005. Managing Intellectual
advantage: implications for strategy formulation. Capital in Practice. Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford.
California Management Review, Spring, 114135. Saengchan S. The role of intellectual capital in creating
International Accounting Standards Committee. 2004. Inter- value in the (Thai) banking industry. 2008. Available
national Accounting Standard No 38Intangible Assets. at: www.bus.tu.ac.th (accessed 3 September 2010).
Kamath GB. 2007. The intellectual capital performance of Indian Senz J. 2005. Human capital indicators, business perfor-
banking sector. Journal of Intellectual Capital 8(1): 96123. mance and market-to-book ratio. Journal of Intellectual
Kaplan R, Norton D. 1996. The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Capital 6(3): 374384.
Strategy into Action. Harvard Business School Press: Boston. Seetharaman A, Teng Low KL, Saravanan AS. 2004.
Kaplan R, Norton D. 2004. Strategy Maps: Converting Comparative justication on intellectual capital. Journal
Intangible Assets into Tangible Outcomes. Harvard of Intellectual Capital 5(4): 522539.
Business School Press: Boston, Massachusetts. Seleim A, Ashour A, Bontis N. 2004. Intellectual capital in
Kaufmann L, Schneider Y. 2004. Intangiblesa synthesis of Egyptian software rms. The Learning Organization: An
current research. Journal of Intellectual Capital 5(3): 366388. International Journal 11(4/5): 332346.
Kristandl G, Bontis N. 2007. The impact of voluntary Seleim A, Ashour A, Bontis N. 2007. Human capital and
disclosure on cost of equity capital and risk premium organizational performance: a study of Egyptian soft-
estimates in a temporal setting. Journal of Intellectual ware companies. Management Decision 45(4): 789901.
Capital 8(4): 577594. Serenko A, Bontis N. 2004. Meta-review of knowledge
Kujansivu P, Lonnqvist A. 2004. The Value and Efciency of management and intellectual capital literature: citation
Intellectual Capital in Finnish Companies. Institute impact and research productivity rankings. Knowledge
of Industrial Management, Tampere University of and Process Management 11(3): 185198.
Technology: Tampere. Serenko A, Bontis N. 2009. Global ranking of knowledge
Lev B. 2001. Intangibles: Management, Measurement, and management and intellectual capital academic journals.
Reporting. Brookings Institution Press: Washington, D.C. Journal of Knowledge Management 13(1): 415.
Lev B. 2003. Remarks on the measurement, valuation, and Sharabati A, Jawad S, Bontis N. 2010. Intellectual capital
reporting of intangible assets. FRBNY Economic Policy and business performance in the pharmaceutical sector
Review, September, 2003, 1721. of Jordan. Management Decision 48(1): 105131.
Lev B, Zarowin P. 1999. The boundaries of nancial Shiu HJ. 2006. Application of the value added intellectual
reporting and how to extend them. Journal of Accounting coefcient to measure corporate performance: evidence
from technological rms. International Journal of
Research 37(2): 353385.
Management 23(2): 356365.
Luthy DH. 1998. Intellectual capital and its measurement.
Stewart TA. 1997. Intellectual Capital: the New Wealth of
Paper presented at the Asian Pacic Interdisciplinary
Organizations. Doubleday/Currency: New York.
Research in Accounting (APIRA) Conference, August
Sullivan PH. 2000. Value-Driven Intellectual Capital: How to
1998, Osaka.
Convert Intangible Corporate Assets into Market Value.
Malhotra Y. 2001. Knowledge assets in the global
John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY.
economy: assessment of national intellectual capital. In
Sveiby KE. 1997. The New Organizational Wealth: Managing
Knowledge Management and Business Model Innovation,
and Measuring Knowledge-based Assets. BarrettKohler:
Malhotra Y (ed.). Idea Publishing Group: London.
San Francisco.
Mavridis GD. 2004. The intellectual capital performance
Ting IWK, Lean HH. 2009. Intellectual capital
of the Japanese banking sector. Journal of Intellectual
performance of nancial institutions in Malaysia Journal
Capital 5(1): 92115.
of Intellectual Capital 10(4): 588599.
MERITUM. 2002. MERITUM Guidelines for Managing
Trevinyo-Rodriguez RN, Bontis N. 2007. The role of intel-
and Reporting on Intangible, Measuring Intangibles to
Understand and Improve Innovation Management lectual capital in Mexican family-based businesses:
understanding their soul, brain and heart. Journal of
MERITUM, Madrid.
Information and Knowledge Management 6(3): 189200.
Myers R. 1990. Classical and Modern Regression with Appli-
Wang J. 2008. Investigating market value and intellectual
cations, 2nd edition. Duxbury: Boston, MA, in: Field, A. capital for S&P500 Journal of Intellectual Capital 9(4):
(2005): Discovering Statistics using SPSS, 2nd edition, 546563.
SAGE Publications, London. Winter S, Szulanski G. 2002. Replication of organiza-
ORegan P, ODonnel D, Kennedy T, Bontis N, Cleary P. 2001.
tional routines: conceptualizing the exploitation of
Perceptions of intellectual capital: Irish evidence. Journal of
knowledge assets. In The Strategic Management of
Human Resource Costing and Accounting 6(2): 2938.
Intellectual Capital in Organizational Knowledge, Choo
ORegan P, ODonnell D, Kennedy T, Bontis N, Cleary P.
C, Bontis N (eds). Oxford University Press: New York,
2005. Board composition, non-executive directors and
NY; 20721.
governance cultures in Irish ICT rms: a CFO perspec- Yalama A, Coskun M. 2007. Intellectual capital perfor-
tive. Corporate Governance: International Journal of Busi- mance of quoted banks on the Istanbul stock exchange
ness in Society 5(4): 5663. market. Journal of Intellectual Capital 8(2): 256271.
Ocean Tomo. Intangible asset market value. 2011. Available Zghal D, Maaloul A. 2010. Analyzing value added as an
at: www.oceantomo.com/productsandservices/invest- indicator of intellectual capital and its consequences on
ments/intangible-market-value (accessed 4 October 2011). company performance. Journal of Intellectual Capital 11
Prahalad CK, Hamel G. 1990. The core competence of the (1): 3960.
corporation. Harvard Business Review, MayJune, 7991.

Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Know. Process Mgmt. 20, 111 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/kpm

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi