Entrepreneurs’ Perception of Outcomes from Intellectual Capital Investments

Authors

  • Oksana Lentjushenkova Ekonomikas un kulturas augstskola University of Economics and Culture
  • Jelena Titko Ekonomikas un kulturas augstskola University of Economics and Culture http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1333-0941

Keywords:

intellectual capital investments, survey, Latvian companies

Abstract

Purpose of the article The goal of the paper is to reflect the results of the authors’ conducted survey among Latvian business sector representatives that was aimed to get an insight into the level of awareness about intellectual capital investments.

Methodology/methods To achieve the established goal the survey among representatives of Latvian 203 companies is conducted.  The most companies represent production, service and trade industries of the national economy. Survey instru-ments is the authors’ developed questionnaire that involves fourteen questions: six of them are respondent profile questions, and the remaining are aimed to determine the core of the concept of intellectual capital on the viewpoint of respondents, the importance of the intellectual capital perceived by respondents, the expected results from the intellectual capital investments. Respondents’ answers were evaluated within the respondents’ groups, based on the profile criteria, such as company’s age, size, financial performance, location and business sector. Data processing was completed in SPSS environment, using analysis of frequencies, ranking and independent samples T-test.

Scientific aim The goal of the current research is to evaluate the perceived importance of the expected results from the intellectual capital investments by Latvian entrepreneurs, and reveal the difference in perceptions caused by the differences in companies’ profiles.

Findings Research results show that most perceived outcomes form IC investments are financial outcomes. Significant differences in evaluations of representatives of different kind of respondents are observed. Depending on company size, age of activities and location of company (Riga and non-Riga) importance of expected outcomes is different. Large and old companies pay attention not only to financial outcomes, but also to non-financial outcomes. Analyzing perceptions of outcomes by location of company, authors find that there are differences only in two outcomes evaluations. Companies in Riga evaluates “reputation and brand value enhancement” higher, than companies in regions. But companies in regions evaluate “cost reduction in the future” higher than companies in Riga.

Conclusions (limits, implications etc) In contemporary economics situation in Latvia, microcompanies and “new” companies have limited amount of resources for development. Usally their strategy based on activities, which provide company existance at the present moment.  Large and “old”companies have better financial conditions and built their strategies on sustainable development principles. They take into account not only possible financial outcomes from the IC investments, but also non-financial outcomes.

References

Awano, G., Franklin, M., Haskel, J., Kastrinaki, Z. (2010). Measuring investment in intangible assets in the UK: results from a new survey. Economic & Labour Market Review, 4(7), 66-71.

Blundell, L., Dearden, R., Meghir C., Sianesi, B. (1999) Human capital investment: The returns from education and training to the individual, the firm and the economy. Fiscal Studies, 20(1), 1-23.

Boujelben, S., Fedhila, H. (2011). The effects of intangible investments on future OCF. Journal of intellectual capital, 12(4), 480-494.

Caldăraru, E. A., Radu, A. L., Pirnea, I. C., Parpandel, D. (2011). Intellectual capital investment, key factor in achieving organizational performance in pharmaceutical companies. In Proceedings of the International Conference Investments and Economic Recovery, 10(1), 253-259.

Clacher, I. (2010). National accounting for intangible assets in the knowledge economy. Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance, 18(2), 106-119.

Corrado, C., Hulten, C., Sichel, D. (2009). Intangible capital and US economic growth. Review of income and wealth, 55(3), 661-685.

European Commission (2013). Flash Eurobarometer 369 “Investing in Intangibles: Economic Assets and Innovation Drivers for Growth”. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_369_en.pdf

European Commission. (2006) Encourage corporate measuring and reporting on research and other forms of intellectual capital. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

Fincham, R., Roslender, R. (2003) The management of intellectual capital and it’s implications for business reporting. Edinburg: The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland.

Gaol, F. L., Kadry, S., Taylor, M., Li, P. S. (2013). Recent trends in social and behaviour sciences. In Proceeding of the 2nd International Congress on Interdisciplinary Behaviour and Social Sciences, (ICIBSoS 2013), Jakarta, Indonesia, 4-5.

Goldin, C. (2014) Human capital. Harvard University, National Bureau of Economic Research, 2014.

Javornik, S., Tekavcic, M., Marc, M. (2012). The efficiency of intellectual capital investments as a potential leading indicator. The International Business & Economics Research Journal, 11(5), 535-558.

Kok, A. (2007). Intellectual capital management as part of knowledge management initiatives at institutions of higher learning. The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(2), 181-192.

Komnenic, B., Pokrajcic, D. (2012). Intellectual capital and corporate performance of MNCs in Serbia. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 13(1), 106-119.

Lentjusenkova, O., Lapina, I. (2015a). Factors Influencing Investments in Intellectual Capital: Case of Latvia. In Proceedings of the 19th World Multi-Conference on Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics (WMSCI 2015). Vol. 1, USA, Orlando, 82-87.

Lentjusenkova, O., Lapina, I. (2015b). Intellectual Capital Investments: Company’s Additional Expenditures or Creating Shared Value?. In Perspectives of Business and Entrepreneurship Development: Economic, Management, Finance and System Engineering from the Academic and Practitioners Views. Proceedings of Selected Papers, Czech Republic, Brno, May, 2015, 207-216.

Moulton, B. R. (2004). The system of national accounts for the new economy: What should change? Washing-ton: Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce. Retrieved from http://www.bea.gov/about/pdf/sna_neweconomy_1003.pdf

Muhammad, N. M. N., Ismail, M.K.A. (2009). Intellectual capital efficiency and companies’ performance: study on Malaysian financial sectors. International Journal of Economics and Finance, 1(2), 206-212.

Naidenova, I., Parshakov, P. (2013). Intellectual capital investments: evidence from panel VAR analysis. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 14(4), 634-660.

OECD. (2015). OECD Economic Outlook, 2015(1). Paris: OECD Publishing. Doi: 10.1787/eco_outlook-v2015-1-en

Starovic, D., Marr, B. (2003). Understanding corporate value: managing and reporting intellectual capital. CIMA. Retrieved from www.cimaglobal.com

Stewart, T., Ruckdeschel, C. (1998). Intellectual capital: The new wealth of organizations. New York: Nicholas Brealey Publishing, Business Digest.

Sydler, R., Haefliger, S., Pruksa, R. (2014). Measuring intellectual capital with financial figures: Can we predict firm profitability? European Management Journal, 32(2), 244-259.

Tan, H. P., Plowman, D., Hancock, P. (2007). Intellectual capital and financial returns of companies. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 8(1), 76 - 95.

The Chartered Institute of Management Accountants (CIMA). (2003). Understanding corporate value: Managing and reporting intellectual capital. Retrieved from http://www.cimaglobal.com/Documents/ImportedDocuments/tech_techrep_understanding_corporate_value_2003.pdf

Tseng, C., Goo, Y. J. (2005). Intellectual capital and corporate value in an emerging economy: empirical studies of Taiwanese manufacturers. R&D Management, 35(2), 187-201.

Young, A. (1998) Measuring intangible investment – Towards an interim statistical framework: Selecting the core components of intangible investment. OECD.

Downloads

Published

2017-10-01

Issue

2017: PROCEEDING OF SELECTED PAPERS

Section

Section 2: Perspectives of Law

License

One of our top priorities and responsibilities is to prevent any illegal or unethical practice. Plagiarism is not tolerated in any form. Through the submission of a manuscript, the author confirms that it is their own original research. The ethical rules are binding for all parties who participate in the conference and are published in the Conference Proceedings. All parties to the editorial process respect the Ethical Rules of Conference.