Journal of Intellectual Capital

Intellectual capital performance in the case of Romanian public companies

Cristina Maria Morariu

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

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:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JIC-05-2014-0061
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, JohnChristopher 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.

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

JIC
15,3

Intellectual capital performance

in the case of Romanian
public companies

392

Cristina Maria Morariu

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

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
companys 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 companys 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
papers 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 corporate 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

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 companys value creation dynamics; allows to acknowledge the strategic position
knowledge resources play in companys 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 companys 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

Table I.
Literature review
summary

Prabowo and Soegiono

Rahim et al.
Shamsuddin et al.
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
F-Jardon and Martos
Zeghal and Maaloul

2010
2010
2010
2010
2011
2003
2007
2005
2008
2007
2009
2007
2009
2010
2009
2008
2009
2005
2000
2005
2009
2010

Varied
na
na
Varied
Positive
Varied
Positive
Positive
Positive
Positive
Positive
Positive
Varied
Varied
Varied
Varied
Varied
Varied
Positive
Positive
Varied
Positive

Result
VAICTM
VAICTM
IC Index
VAICTM
VAICTM
VAICTM
VAICTM
VAICTM
VAICTM
M-BV
IC Index
VAICTM
VAICTM
VAICTM
VAICTM
VAICTM
VAICTM
VAICTM
VAICTM
VAICTM
Global Model
VAICTM

Mea sure
of IC
performance
Dependent
Independent
na
Independent
Dependent variable
Independent
Independent
Independent
Dependent variable
na
na
Independent
Independent
na
na
Independent
Independent
Independent
Independent
na
na
Independent

Variable type
69
na
na
37-avg
350
75
150
425-avg
60
139
32
100-avg
80
11
18
25
20
81
27
16
113
300

No of
Companies

Economy
type

Indonesia
Emerging
Malaysia
Emerging
Malaysia
Emerging
Hong Kong
Developed
Russia
Emerging
South Africa
Emerging
Singapore
Developed
Taiwan
Emerging
UK banks
Developed
North American SE Developed
Poland
Emerging
Taiwan
Emerging
India
Emerging
Australia
Developed
Malaysia
Emerging
India
Emerging
Malaysia
Emerging
Taiwan
Emerging
UK
Developed
Malaysia
Emerging
Argentina
Emerging
UK
Developed

Country

394

Authors

Year of
publication

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

2005

2005-2008
2005-2007
2001
2000-2002
1992-2002
1999-2005
2004
2000-2005
2001-2005
2002-2006
2005-2007
2007
1996-2006
1999-2007
200
1992-1999
2001-2003

2008
2000-2009

Year of
analysis

JIC
15,3

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 companys 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 companys 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.
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

Intellectual
capital
performance
395

JIC
15,3

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

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 companys 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 limitations 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 studies, 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 economies 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 banks 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 companys 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 firms 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 companys 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 companys 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 firms 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 Buszko 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. Similar results are obtained by Molodchik
and Bykova (2011) in the case of 350 Russian industrial enterprises analysed for
2005-2007 period.
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

Intellectual
capital
performance
397

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.

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

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 Market Capitalization/Shareholders Equity

Traditional
industry
Materials sector

Farmaceutica
Remedia Sa Deva

Amonil S.A.

Sif Moldova S.A.

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

Armatura S.A.

Carbochim S.A.
Dafora Sa
Mechel Targoviste
Sinteza S.A.

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

Romcarbon Sa
Zimtub S.A.
Ves Sa

Prodplast S.A.

Sif Banat Crisana

S.A.

Prefab Sa
Bucuresti

Alumil Rom
Industry S.A.

Ropharma Sa
Brasov
Zentiva S.A.

Oltchim S.A. Rm.

Banca Comerciala
Carpatica S.A.
Banca
Transilvania
Brd Groupe
Societe Generale
Impact Developer
and Contractor
S.A.
S.S.I.F. Broker S.A.

Antibiotice S.A.
Biofarm S.A.

11

Knowledge
intensive
Financial sector

Knowledge
intensive
HealthCare sector

Azomures S.A.

No. of
22
companies
Company name Alro S.A.

GICS Criteria

KIBS criteria

14

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

Electroarges Sa
Curtea De Arges
Mecanica Ceahlau

Electroaparataj
S.A.

Comelf S.A.

Comcm Sa
Constanta

C.N.T.E.E.
Socep S.A.
Transelectrica
S.N.T.G.N.
Turbomecanica
Transgaz S.A.
Aerostar S.A.

Traditional
Traditional
industry
industry
Utilities sector Industrials sector

Boromir Prod
Buzau
Titan S.A.

Bermas S.A.

Traditional
industry
Consumer staples

Oil Terminal S.A.

Traditional
industry
Energy sector

Turism Felix S.A.

Baile Felix
Turism, Hoteluri,
Restaurante Marea
Neagra
T.M.K. - Artrom
S.A.
Ucm Resita S.A.

Rompetrol Well
Services S.A.
Uztel S.A.

Compania
Energopetrol S.A.

Casa De Bucovina- Omv Petrom

Club De Munte
Uamt S.A.
Petrolexportimport
S.A.
Compa S. A.
Rompetrol Rafinare
S.A.

Altur S.A.

Traditional
industry
Consumer
discretionary
8

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

Intellectual
capital
performance
399

Table II.
Companies classification

JIC
15,3

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

400

ATO Turnover/Total Assets

ROE 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
companys performance. Using the VAICTM, three coefficients were selected to
measure the independent variables under consideration:
(1) VAHU: Value-added human capital coefficient
VAHU VA/HC
VA OUTINPUT SalesInput
HC all the expenditures for employees (total salaries and wages)
(2) SCVA: Value added structural capital coefficient
SCVA SC/VA
SC VAHC
VAIN: the value added IC coefficient
VAIN VAHU SCVA
(3) VACA: the value added capital employed coefficient
VACA VA/CA
CA book value of the net assets (or equity)
In the end, VAIC VAHU SCVA 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)
(2)

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

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

3.3 Regression models

Six regression models were used to investigate papers 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 b1VAICTM b2FSIZE b3INDUSTRY
M2. ATO b1VAICTM b2FSIZE b3INDUSTRY
M3. ROE b1VAICTM b2FSIZE b3INDUSTRY
M4. MB b1VAHU b2SCVA b3VACA b4FSIZE b5INDUSTRY
M5. ATO b1VAHU b2SCVA b3VACA b4FSIZE b5INDUSTRY
M6. ROE b1VAHU b2SCVA b3VACA b4FSIZE 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 0.6581) than from physical and financial capital employed (VACA 1.5204).

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

SALES_LN
VAHU_LN
VACA_LN
SCVA_LN
VAICTM_LG
ROE_LN
ATO_LN
MB_LN
VAIN_LN

Valid

Missing

Mean

Median

Skewness

SE of skewness

72
61
62
57
61
54
72
69
61

0
11
10
15
11
18
0
3
11

18.5038
0.3519
1.5204
0.8688
0.3466
3.2434
0.8121
0.4879
0.6581

18.5215
0.2950
1.3411
0.8236
0.3286
2.9040
0.5731
0.3818
0.5770

0.584
0.769
1.519
0.252
0.005
1.213
0.321
0.122
0.131

0.283
0.306
0.304
0.316
0.306
0.325
0.283
0.289
0.306

Intellectual
capital
performance
401
Table III.
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 (VAIN4VACA). 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
1.5455) then TI group (VAICTM 0.5543), F 17.58, po0.05.
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 Pearsons 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 (ro0.8).
Considering the correlations between independent variables and dependent
variables, only nine are statistically significant. VACA is significantly positively
associated with ROE, r(50) 0.512, po0.01 and with MB, r(60) 0.502, po0.01 and
ATO, r(62) 0.316, po0.05.This means that companies with relatively high
VACA were likely to have high ROE, MB and ATO. SCVA is significantly negatively
Knowledge industry
n
Mean
VAHU_LN
SCVA_LN
VAIN_LN
VACA_LN
VAICTM_LN
ROE_LN
ATO_LN
MB_LN
SALES_LN

14
16
15
14
15
14
16
16
16

1.3103
0.5798
1.4324
1.2616
1.5455
2.3845
1.4758
0.1892
18.8232

Traditional industry
n
Mean
47
41
46
48
46
40
56
53
56

0.0665
0.9815
0.4056
1.5959
0.5543
3.5440
0.6225
0.6923
18.4126

Total
Mean

Sig.

61
57
61
62
61
54
72
69
72

0.3519
0.8688
0.6581
1.5204
0.7981
3.2434
0.8121
0.4879
18.5038

25.25
1.152
16.73
1.003
17.58
4.196
9.481
10.17
0.742

0.000
0.288
0.000
0.321
0.000
0.046
0.003
0.002
0.392

Table IV.
One-way ANOVA
summary

JIC
15,3

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

402

Table V.
Pearson correlation
summary

VAHU_LN SCVA_LN VACA_LN VAICTM_LN ROE_LN ATO_LN MB_LN

VAHU_LN Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (two-tailed)
n
SCVA_LN Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (two-tailed)
n
VACA_LN Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (two-tailed)
n
VAICTM_LN Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (two-tailed)
n
ROE_LN Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (two-tailed)
n
ATO_LN Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (two-tailed)
n
MB_LN
Sig. (two-tailed)
n

1
61

0.708**
0.000
46
1

0.263*
0.042
60

0.918**
0.000
54

0.287*
0.046
49

0.228
0.077
61

0.091
0.540
48

0.524**
0.000
53

0.192
0.207
45

0.365** 0.171
0.005
0.211
57
55

0.098
0.476
55

0.512** 0.316*
0.000
0.012
50
62

0.708**
0.000
46

57

0.263*
0.42
60

0.091
0.540
48

62

0.918**
0.000
54

0.524**
0.000
53

0.098
0.476
55

61

0.287*
0.46
49

0.192
0.207
45

0.512**
0.000
50

0.283
0.054
47

0.228
0.077
61
0.263*
0.43
60

0.365**
0.005
57
0.171
0.211
55

0.316*
0.012
62
0.502**
0.000
60

0.286*
0.025
61
0.141
0.282
60

0.283
0.054
47
1
54

0.263*
0.043
60

0.502**
0.000
60

0.286* 0.141
0.025
0.282
61
60
0.127
0.358
54

0.127
1
0.358
54
72
0.616** 0.302*
0.000
0.012
51
69

0.616**
0.000
51
0.302*
0.012
69
1
69

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

correlated with ATO, r(57) 0.365, po0.01. 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) 0.287, po0.05 and MB, r(60) 0.263, po0.05. 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) 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) 14.145, po0.01). In line with theoretical expectations, the results
indicate a significant association between the VAIC and MB, ( po0.01). 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 R2 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) 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 R2 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) 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.

Unstandardized coefficients
B
SE

Model
1

Constant
VAICTM_LN
SALES_LN
INDUSTRY

2.102
0.538
0.227
1.184

1.228
0.118
0.062
0.235

Standardized coefficients
b

Sig.

0.547
0.392
0.581

1.712
4.582
3.685
5.041

0.092
0.000
0.001
0.000

Standardized coefficients
b

Sig.

0.079
0.260
0.267

2.415
0.491
1.824
1.719

0.020
0.626
0.075
0.093

Notes: Dependent variable: MB_LN; R 0.431; F (3, 56) 14.145. po0.01

Unstandardized coefficients
B
SE

Model
1

Constant
VAICTM_LN
SALES_LN
INDUSTRY

6.226
0.125
0.235
0.844

2.578
0.254
0.129
0.491

Notes: aDependent variable: ROE_LN; R2 0.199; F (3, 43) 3.572. po0.05

Unstandardized
B
SE

Model
1

Constant
SALES_LN
INDUSTRY
VAICTM_LN

4.892
0.172
0.656
0.251

1.524
0.077
0.297
0.149

Standardized coefficients
b

Sig.

0.278
0.295
0.234

3.209
2.244
2.210
1.679

0.002
0.029
0.031
0.099

Notes: aDependent variable: ATO_LN; R2 0.216; F (3, 57) 5.232. po0.01

Intellectual
capital
performance
403

Table VI.
Regression
analysis_M1_coefficients

Table VII.
Regression
analysis_M2_coefficients

Table VIII.
Regression
analysis_M3_coefficients

JIC
15,3

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

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) 6.426, po0.01) and explains 37.6 per cent of the variance in MB (adjusted R2
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 companys 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) 1.510, p40.05) 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) 4.755, po0.01) and explains 29.4 per cent of the variance in
productivity (adjusted R2 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.

Model
1

Table IX.
Regression analysis_
M4_coefficients

Constant
SALES_LN
INDUSTRY
VAHU_LN
SCVA_LN
VACA_LN

0.922
0.157
1.134
0.421
0.049
0.102

1.530
0.070
0.241
0.202
0.147
0.141

Standardized coefficients
b

Sig.

0.305
0.661
0.413
0.062
0.095

0.603
2.236
4.709
2.089
0.334
0.725

0.550
0.031
0.000
0.043
0.740
0.473

Standardized coefficients
b

Sig.

0.240
0.078
0.138
0.135
0.060

0.686
1.275
0.296
0.568
0.760
0.322

0.497
0.211
0.769
0.574
0.452
0.749

Notes: aDependent variable: MB_LN; R2 0.445; F (5, 40) 6.426. po0.01

Model
1

Table X.
Regression analysis_
M5_coefficients

Unstandardized coefficients
B
SE

Constant
INDUSTRY
VAHU_LN
SCVA_LN
VACA_LN
SALES_LN

Unstandardized coefficients
B
SE
2.350
0.692
0.132
0.182
0.248
0.052

3.424
0.543
0.445
0.321
0.326
0.160

Notes: aDependent variable: ROE_LN; R2 0.182; F (5, 34) 1.510. p40.05

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 entitys 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 organizations 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

Model
1

Constant
INDUSTRY
VAHU_LN
SCVA_LN
VACA_LN
SALES_LN

Unstandardized coefficients
B
SE
1.121
0.555
0.543
0.137
0.278
0.025

1.956
0.308
0.258
0.188
0.181
0.090

Standardized coefficients
b

Sig.

0.269
0.443
0.145
0.215
0.041

0.573
1.803
2.107
0.732
1.540
0.281

0.570
0.079
0.041
0.468
0.132
0.780

Notes: aDependent variable: ATO_LN; R2 0.373; F (5, 40) 4.755. po0.01

Intellectual
capital
performance
405

Table XI.
Regression analysis_M6
_coefficients

JIC
15,3

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

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 companys 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, organizations image, organizations
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 companys 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

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 Romanias, 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)

408
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 Companys 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.

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

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

overview and managerial implication, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 14 No. 3,
pp. 352-359.
Lerro, A., Iacobone, F. and Schiuma, G. (2012), Knowledge assets assessment strategies:
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 firms
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 companys 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.

Intellectual
capital
performance
409

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