Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to study, mainly from the point of view of methodological accounting principles, the value added intellectual coefficient (VAIC), introduced by Pulic as a measure of intellectual capital efficiency (ICE). More specifically, the aim of the analysis is to investigate the strengths and weaknesses of the VAIC, primarily from the accounting theory perspective. Design/methodology/approach -The approach to the study of Pulic's contribution is as follows: first the authors submitted Pulic's methodology to a "conceptual" test, in order to check whether it contradicts any basic accounting principles. Then the results of this methodological test were compared to those obtained by the authors who have criticized Pulic's proposal, in order to check for any concordance or discordance with the literature. Findings -Several authors have discussed the crucial aspects of the VAIC. In this paper the focus is primarily on Andriessen's concerns, since they relate to the theoretical accounting aspects of Pulic's proposal, which is the topic of the paper. First of all, the authors have found that the suggestion of Pulic, centered on the Value Added Income Statement, does not modify or contradict any of the fundamental accounting principles. Therefore the criticisms made by Professor Andriessen should be subject to future research. Furthermore the performance measure proposed by Pulic ( VAIC) is not a genuine rival to the traditional methodologies (e.g. the Economic Value Added ( EVA)), as instead emerges from Pulic's papers. VAIC and EVA measure different aspects of the performance and therefore may usefully live together in a context in which the performance is measured through multicriteria methodologies, such as the Balanced Scorecard, Skandia Navigator or Intangible Asset Monitor. Practical implications -The practical implications of the results are: the correct placing of Pulic's contribution into the accounting principles theory; and the manner for using the VAIC methodology in a multicriteria performance evaluation. The authors believe that both aspects have relevant implications for business accounting practice. Originality/value -The paper shows that almost all of the misunderstandings of the literature debate, regarding Pulic's proposal, arise from a "semantic shift" generated by the fact that Pulic uses the terms human capital and structural capital with a completely different meaning from that of the Skandia Navigator. Authors' hope is that the study described in the paper will contribute to a better understanding of: the way to calculate and to interpret the efficiency of intellectual capital (IC) in a correct manner; and the role of IC on firm multicriteria performances.

Purpose: This study proposes a comparison between Value Added Intellectual Coefficient (VAIC) and one of the most important performance evaluation methods, the Economic Value Added (EVA), starting from a re-interpretation of the VAIC. Design/methodology/approach: The empirical data were gathered from AMADEUS Bureau van Dijk and consist of 2,596 companies operating in Northern Italy, from six different economic sectors, observed for the year 2011. A correlation analysis was carried out in order to highlight whether there is a relationship between the two concepts of VAIC and EVA. Findings: Results show that EVA and VAIC have no significant relationships; as a matter of fact, EVA is based on financial theory, whereas VAIC is focalised on the assessment of Intellectual Capital Efficiency (ICE). Practical implications: Managers could be misled due to the fact that they often make decisions by taking into account only financial indicators such as EBIT, EVA, etc. Although methods like EVA have improved modern accounting systems, they do not take into account information linked to ICE. Therefore, these two perspectives can be useful in a context in which firms' performances are measured through multi-criteria methodologies (i.e. Balanced scorecard). Originality/value: The proposal describes the differences between VAIC and EVA considering these two concepts as not contrasting. In fact, in order to better measure firms' performances, it could be useful to consider VAIC and EVA as an integrated vision in order to develop multi-criteria evaluation systems, rather than consider them separately. © Emerald Group Publishing Limited

The purpose of this paper is to place the value creation process within sustainable growth strategies. Building on Drucker (1968, 1999a, b), Pulic (2000, 2004, 2008) and other papers by the same authors (Iazzolino and Laise, 2013) the specific aim of this research is to propose an accounting-based framework able to: distinguish between knowledge-intensive firms (KIFs) and nonknowledge intensive firms (nonKIFs); and investigate the contribution of the two sets of firms (KIFs and nonKIFs) to overall sustainability, from a social point of view, of the economic system. Design/methodology/approach – The paper uses the notion of value added (VA) (Pulic, 2000, 2004, 2008) as the main indicator to measure the value creation in a knowledge economy context. As regard the first point of the framework, the approach is based on the analysis of VA and its components, starting from a reinterpretation of the concept of value added intellectual coefficient made by the same authors of this paper. An empirical analysis based on the composition of VA in ten Italian industries, by using an overall sample of 1,000 firms, has been carried out and is described in the paper. As regards the second point, the paper analyses, from a theoretical point of view, the necessary conditions to set up a sustainable value creation strategy in social terms, using the conceptual categories introduced by Drucker (1968, 1999a, b) and Pulic (2000, 2004, 2008). Findings – From results of the empirical analysis it emerges that: first, in traditional industries the weight of the cost of employees on VA (human capital investments) is less than the other sectors (low human capital intensity). In these sectors the value creation strategy is mainly based on “dead knowledge,” embedded in machines (physical capital); and second, in nontraditional industries (consulting, advertising, research, etc.) the economic value creation is mainly based on “living knowledge,” embedded in human resources (high human capital intensity). In these sectors we have lower productivity of work (VA/human capital) and higher employment. Practical implications – The framework proposed makes it possible to reduce the risk of myopic valuation of economic performance. Through this methodology it is possible to highlight the effects of sustainable strategies based on knowledge investments oriented toward the stakeholder value theory and corporate social responsibility. The approach can be very useful for top managers and for accountants, as it underlines the importance of the VA income statement and constructs a strong link to the themes of knowledge management. Originality/value – The originality and the value of this methodological proposal can be appreciated by taking into account that in the literature there is no accounting-based methodology that is able to identify: the knowledge-intensive firms; and the firms that can contribute to overall social sustainability, within the set of all firms. © 2016, © Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Purpose The aim of the paper is to provide some guidelines for using and not using knowledge-based strategies (KS) and for understanding the sustainability of such kinds of strategy. The paper proposes an accounting-based framework that can be used for this aim. The meaning of the guidelines is illustrated with reference to a specific case of a company that implements a KS: the Italian Loccioni Group. The work continues and develops a research already started by the same authors (Iazzolino and Laise, 2013, 2016; Iazzolino et al., 2014). Design/methodology/approach Building on previous works by the same authors (Iazzolino and Laise, 2013, 2016; Iazzolino et al., 2014), the proposed framework starts from the analysis of the value added (VA) created by the firm. To characterize a KS, the VA and its components are analyzed. To evaluate the sustainability of a strategy (from the economic and social point of view), the time trend of the VA and its composition are also analyzed. The research is theoretical and empirical: a case study has been carried out to apply the framework. Specific key performance indicators were identified to describe the context analyzed. Findings From a theoretical point of view, an inter-theory relationship (not existing in the literature) between P. Drucker’s approach of economic/social sustainable strategies (ESS) based on knowledge and Pulic’s theory of human capital efficiency (HCE) has been constructed. From results of application of the framework on the case study, it emerges that the Loccioni Group implements a KS. It can be considered a “win-win” strategy. Research limitations/implications The case study (Loccioni Group) is described to highlight that an ESS is achievable. The case study has to be understood as the description of a best practice (a benchmark) and not as a statistical test of hypothesis (a theory test). The description of the case is useful to show that companies which adopt KS are not a utopia. There are concrete examples that show that it is possible to implement such strategies. In other words, the set of companies that adopt a ESS is not “empty”. Practical implications Managers underestimate the importance of a performance measurement that takes into account advantages in terms of intangibles. The approach analyzed in this paper makes it possible to highlight the effects of sustainable strategies based on knowledge investments oriented toward the stakeholder value theory and corporate social responsibility. Originality/value The main purpose of this paper is the construction of an inter-theory relationship (not existing in the literature) between P. Drucker’s approach of ESS based on knowledge and Pulic’s theory of HCE. The existence of such a relation, in the authors’ opinion, is necessary to provide a theoretical foundation of an accounting framework useful for evaluating KS and that a KS (in Drucker’s sense) is adopted when it creates value for all the stakeholders. That is, it is adopted when it has a high VA (in Pulic’s sense).