The dynamics of intellectual resources during the economic crisis

Figures & data

Figure 1. The framework of the research design.

Source: Designed by the authors.

Figure 2. Hypotheses related to the changing role of intellectual capital value drivers over the crisis.

Source: Designed by the authors.

Table 1. Proxy-indicators for intellectual resources.

Components	Factors in the frame of IC likely to be sensitive to changes to external conditions	Intellectual capital proxy indicators	Authors that mention the same or similar proxy indicators	Information source and estimation algorithm
Intellectual capital outcome: Value creation	The fact of the creation or the destruction of the value	Economic Value Added (EVA^©)	Riahi-Belkaoui (2003)	EVAt=ICt-1*(ROICt-WACCt)^2
			Garcia-Nogueira et al. (2010)
			Pal et al. (2009)
			Shakina and Barajas (2012)
Human capital	The quality of the human capital	Employee expenses	Hagg and Scheutz (2006)	Company’s Annual Report*, section ‘Financial data’ Employee costs divided to total costs
	The qualification and expertise of companies top-management		Baiburina and Golovko (2008)
			Orens et al. (2009)
		Number of employees	Huang and Liu (2005)	Company’s Annual Report, section ‘Common information’
			Huang and Wang (2008)
			Baiburina and Golovko (2008)
			Garcia-Nogueira et al. (2010)
			Huang and Wu (2010)
		Board of directors qualification	Ugboro and Obeng (2000)	Company’s Annual Report, section ‘Directors information’.
			Tseng and Goo (2005)	If more than one third of directors have postgraduate level of qualification and more than 5 years of experience (2 points).
			Shrader and Siegel (2007)	If more than one third of directors have postgraduate level of qualification or more than 5 years of experience:1 point.
			Orens et al. (2009)	Another: 0.
			Kamukama, (2010)
			Shakina and Barajas (2012)
Structural Capital	The innovation behaviour	R&D investments	Poletti Lau (2003)	Company’s Annual Report, section ‘Financial data’
			Gleason and Klock (2003)
			Sellers-Rubio et al. (2007)
			Huang and Wang (2008)
			Huang and Liu (2005)
		Number of patents, licences, trademarks	Tseng and Goo (2005)	Search on company’s name and number of patents on the website QPAT: http://www.orbit.com.
			Sellers-Rubio et al. (2007)
			Shakina and Barajas (2012)
		Book value of Intangible assets	Rubio et al. (Sellers-2007)	Company’s Annual Report, section ‘Financial data’
			Shakina and Barajas (2012)
	The strategy implementation	Strategy implementation	Tseng and Goo (2005)	Company’s website
			Kamukama (2010)
			Shakina and Barajas (2012)
		ERP, quality management systems implementation	Kamukama (2010)	Search on company’s location on their website using the following words as «ERP», «Oracle», «NAVISION», «NAV», «SQL», «SAP» If the company has news about these things: 1 point, otherwise: 0 points. Important to put ‘1’ or ‘0’ in the year of start implementation
			Murthy and Mouritsen (2011)
			Shakina and Barajas (2012)
	Company’s experience	Company’s experience/age	Huang and Wang (2008)	Company’s Annual Report, section ‘Common information’
	Companies’ financial policy	Financial leverage	Poletti Lau (2003)	Company’s Annual Report, section ‘Financial data’Estimation: Long term debts divided to Equity
			Riahi-Belkaoui (2003)
			Huang and Liu (2005)
			Liang et al. (2011)
	Risk of the principal – agent conflict	Owners/directors ratio	Himmelberg et al. (1999)	Company’s Annual Report*, sections ‘Shareholder name’ and ‘Directors information’
			Durand and Vargas (2003)
			Bruton et al. (2010)
			Liang et al. (2011)
			Shakina and Barajas (2012)
Relational capital	Brand power	Well-known brand	Riahi-Belkaoui (2003)	Search on company’s name on the website: http://www.justmeans.com/top-global-1,000-companies.If it has a rank: 1 point, otherwise: 0 point.
			Hagg and Scheutz (2006)
			Murthy and Mouritsen, (2011)
			Shakina and Barajas (2012)
	International penetration	Foreign capital employed	Shakina and Barajas (2012)	Company’s Annual Report, Section ‘Shareholder name’, vertical vector ‘country’.If company has foreign investors it gained 1 point, and otherwise 0 points
	Brand power, Company’s marketing network	Citations in search engines	Shakina and Barajas (2012)	Search on company’s name and its score on the website: http://www.prchecker.info/check_page_rank.php
	Company’s marketing network	Presence of subsidiaries	Shakina and Barajas (2012)	Company’s Annual Report, section «Subsidiary name». If company has less than 100 subsidiaries put the total number, otherwise use the following vector «First 100 out of Y subsidiaries».
	Company’s marketing network	Commercial expenses share	Gleason and Klock (2003)	Company’s Annual Report, section ‘Financial data’Estimation: Commercial expenses divided to Total costs
			Huang and Wang (2008)
			Garcia-Nogueira et al. (2010)
External factors of intellectual capital transformation	Belonging to a particular industry	Industry	Huang and Liu (2005)	Company’s Annual Report, section ‘Common information’, The main activity.
	Belonging to a particular country	Knowledge Economy Index	Shakina and Barajas (2012)	Search on company’s location on the website: http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalogue/KEI

² Where:

IC_t-1 = D_t+E_t: Book Value of Equity and Debts.

ROIC_t=NOPAT_t/IC_t-1: Return on invested capital.

NOPAT_t=EBIT_t(1-T): net operation profit after taxes.

WACC_t=D_t/(D_t+E_t)*kd(1-T)+ E_t/(D_t+E_t)*ke: Weighted average cost of capital.

D_t: Book value of debt.

E_t: Book value of equity.

kd=krf+default spread of the company+default spread of the country: Cost of debt.

ke=krf+β*(km-krf): Cost of Equity.

krf: Risk free rate – return on the Treasury bonds of USA Government.

β: bottom-up build beta (adjusted by Hamada’s equation).

km: Historical return on the market portfolio (market index).

T: effective tax rate.

For our study we used the annual reports from the Amadeus database provided by Bureau Van Dijk (http://www.bvdep.com/be-nl/amadeus.html).

Source: authors’ own elaboration.

Table 2. Key descriptive statistics of the sub-samples (million dollars).

Variable	Year	Number of observations	Mean value	Standard Deviation	Min	Max
EVA^©	2006	240	−19.74	169.46	−1,627.78	1,762.43
	2007	256	−36.13	192.17	−2,699.10	869.67
	2008	271	−66.00	313.55	−4,331.47	1,403.26
	2009	255	−96.44	591.28	−8,799.05	216.18
Company’s experience/age	2006	290	35.61	32.93	0.00	142.00
	2007	295	35.95	32.83	0.00	143.00
	2008	300	36.93	33.22	0.00	144.00
	2009	304	37.05	33.00	0.00	145.00
Number of employees	2006	295	4,244	4,083	514	19,580
	2007	303	4,351	4,171	512	18,717
	2008	307	4,347	4,279	508	18,767
	2009	312	4,087	4,205	501	19,302
Intangible assets	2006	297	132.19	368.50	0.00	4,317.99
	2007	303	185.30	490.10	0.00	4,051.95
	2008	307	192.99	510.34	0.00	4,326.16
	2009	312	216.14	648.73	0.00	6,627.11

Source: authors’ own elaboration.

Table 3. Analysis of companies that created or destroyed values during the period (million dollars).

Year	Creating value		Destroying value
	Number of companies	Mean positive EVA^©	Number of companies	Mean negative EVA^©
2006	67	40.85	173	−42.74
2007	58	35.18	198	−55.49
2008	40	52.78	231	−83.99
2009	36	24.46	219	−111.19

Source: authors’ own elaboration.

Table 4. Results of the regression estimation.

Tests	Panel 1	Panel 2	Panel 3	Panel 4
	2006	2007	2008	2009
Hypothesis 1
Pseudo R-squared	0.131	0.117	0.137	0.264
Log pseudolikelihood	−111.342	−110.258	−86.595	−65.049
Wald chi2(18)	29.13*	33.33**	31.20**	38.70***
Intercept	−7.779	−4.203	−4.202	−4.641
	(1.950)	(1.712)	(1.891)	(2.246)
Number of observations (Groups)	212	224	224	213
Independent variables/factors of intellectual capital	Panel 1	Panel 2	Panel 3	Panel 4
	2006	2007	2008	2009
Hypothesis 2
Company’s experience	−.0131**	−.0168***	−.013*	−.008
	(.005)	(.006)	(.007)	(.008)
Owners/directors ratio	−.333	.544	1.214*	−.110
	(.842)	(.763)	(.745)	(1.035)
Strategy implementation	−.239	.406	.375	.298
	(.452)	(.454)	(.524)	(.868)
ERP, quality management systems implementation	−.545	−.982**	.048	−1.876 ***
	(.436)	(.476)	(.529)	(.676)
R&D investments	.004	−.0002	−.021*	−.037***
	(.012)	(.013)	(.011)	(.013)
Number of patents, licences, trademarks	.002	.003	.006***	−.002
	(.002)	(.003)	(.002)	(.003)
Book value of Intangible assets	−.0002	.0004	−.0003	−.0003
	(.0006)	(.0004)	(.0005)	(.0004)
Financial leverage	.041	−.013	−.177	−.342
	(.066)	(.117)	(.271)	(.272)
Hypothesis 3
Well-known brand	1.567	.852	1.060*	1.888**
	(.735)	(.717)	(.586)	(.764)
Foreign capital employed	−.074	.202	.310	−.177
	(.522)	(.526)	(.647)	(.575)
Citations in search engines	−.085	−.109	.184	−.456***
	(.117)	(.102)	(.135)	(.169)
Presence of subsidiaries	−.0003	−.002	−.00,005	−.028 **
	(.002)	(.002)	(.002)	(.0138)
Commercial expenses share	.204	.004	.969	1.903
	(1.088)	(.989)	(.993)	(1.297)
Hypothesis 4
Employee expenses	−.0002	.0002	.00001	.004
	(.002)	(.002)	(.002)	(.003)
Number of employees	.00001	−00001	.00,004	.00001
	(.00006)	(.00006)	(.00008)	(.0002)
Board of directors qualification	.0247	−.518	−1.044*	1.677***
	(.454)	(.454)	(.565)	(.585)
Control variables
Company is a manufacturer	.494	.414	.269	−.886
	(.494)	(.512)	(.677)	(.852)
Company is in the oil industry	dropped	1.270	dropped	−2.596**
		(.842)		(1.173)
It is a trading company	.206	−.010	−.456	−.967*
	(.427)	(.452)	(.582)	(.599)
Knowledge Economy Index	.894***	.446**	.183	.593**
	(.265)	(.228)	(.235)	(.311)

Source: authors’ own elaboration.

Notes:.

^* Significant at p<0.1.

^** Significant at p<0.05.

^*** Significant at p<0.001.

Riahi-Belkaoui, A. (2003). Intellectual capital and firm performance of US multinational firms. Journal of Intellectual capital, 4, 215–226.10.1108/14691930310472839

 Google Scholar

Garcia-Nogueira, C., Kimura, H., Junior, L. D. B. & Basso, L. F. C. (2010). The Impact of Intellectual Capital on Value Added for Brazilian Companies Traded at the BMF-BOVESPA Retrieved from. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1571576

 Google Scholar

Pal, K., Soriys, S., & Sura, S. J. (2009). A Comparative Study of VAIC, EVA and MVA of Indian Banking Industry. Pragyaan. Journal of Management, 8, 3–15.

 Google Scholar

Shakina, E., & Barajas, A. (2012). The relationship between intellectual capital quality and corporate performance: An empirical study of Russian and European companies. Economic Annals, LVII, 192, 79–97.10.2298/EKA1292079B

 Google Scholar

Hagg, C., & Scheutz, C. (2006). Property brands, human capital and Tobin’s q. Journal of Human Resource Costing & Accounting, 10, 4–10.

 Google Scholar

Baiburina, E. R., & Golovko, T. V. (2008). Empirical investigation of intellectual enterprise value and its factors for big Russian companies. Corporate Finance, 2, 5–23.

 Google Scholar

Orens, R., Aerts, W., & Lybaert, N. (2009). Intellectual capital disclosure, cost of finance and firm value. Management Decision., 47, 1536–1554.10.1108/00251740911004673

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Huang, C. J., & Liu, C. J. (2005). Exploration for the relationship between innovation, IT and performance. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 6, 237–252.10.1108/14691930510592825

 Google Scholar

Huang, C., & Wang, M. (2008). The Effects of Economic Value Added and Intellectual. Capital on the Market Value of Firms: An Empirical Study, International Journal of Management, 25, 722–731.

 Google Scholar

Huang, Y., & Wu, Y. J. (2010). Intellectual capital and knowledge productivity: The Taiwan biotech industry. Management Decision, 48, 580–599.10.1108/00251741011041364

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ugboro, I. O., & Obeng, K. (2000). Top management leadership, employee empowerment, job satisfaction, and customer satisfaction in TQM organizations: An empirical study. Journal of Quality Management, 5, 247–272.10.1016/S1084-8568(01)00023-2

 Google Scholar

Tseng, C.-Y., & Goo, Y.-J. J. (2005). Intellectual capital and corporate value in an emerging economy: Empirical study of Taiwanese manufacturers. R&D Management, 35, 187–201.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Shrader, R., & Siegel, D. S. (2007). Assessing the Relationship between Human Capital and Firm Performance: Evidence from Technology-Based New Ventures. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31, 893–908.10.1111/etap.2007.31.issue-6

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kamukama, A. N. (2010). Intellectual capital and performance: Testing interaction effects. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 11, 554–574.10.1108/14691931011085687

 Google Scholar

Poletti Lau, J. (2003). Effects of Intangible Capital on Firm Performance. Leuven: VIIth Spring Meeting of Young Economists.

 Google Scholar

Gleason, K. I. & Klock, M. (2003). Intangible capital in the pharmaceutical & chemical industry. (Working Papers). Department of Economics and Finance. Retrieved from http://scholarworks.uno.edu/econ_wp/10

 Google Scholar

Sellers-Rubio, R., Nicolau-Gonzálbez, J. L., & Mas-Ruiz, F. (2007). The economic value of patent protection and rivalry in the Spanish electrical sector. European Journal of Innovation Management, 10, 434–452.10.1108/14601060710828763

 Google Scholar

Murthy, V., & Mouritsen, J. (2011). The performance of intellectual capital: Mobilising relationships between intellectual and financial capital in a bank. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 24, 622–646.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Liang, C. J., Huang, T. T., & Lin, W. C. (2011). Does ownership structure affect firm value? Intellectual capital across industries perspective. Journal of Intellectual Capital., 12, 552–570.10.1108/14691931111181724

 Google Scholar

Himmelberg, Ch. P., Hubbarda, R. G., & Paliaa, D. (1999). Understanding the determinants of managerial ownership and the link between ownership and performance. Journal of Financial Economics, 53, 353–384.10.1016/S0304-405X(99)00025-2

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Durand, R., & Vargas, V. (2003). Ownership, organization, and private firms’ efficient use of resources. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 667–675.10.1002/(ISSN)1097-0266

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bruton, G. R., Filatotchev, I., Chahine, S., & Wrigh, M. (2010). Governance, ownership structure, and performance of IPO firms: The impact of different types of private equity investors and institutional environments. Strategic Management Journal, 31, 491–509.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar