Intellectual capital and firm performance in emerging economies: the case of India

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the impact of intellectual capital (IC) on Indian traditional sector and compare the relative importance of IC on corporate performance of Indian knowledge-based sector (engineering sector) and traditional sector (steel sector). Design/methodology/approach Secondary data on 100 listed Indian firms, comprising of 44 firms from the engineering sector and 56 from the steel sector, are collected from “Capitaline Plus” Corporate database for a period of 14 years from 1999-2000 to 2012-2013. IC and its components are computed using Pulic’s value-added intellectual coefficient model and firm performance is measured by return on asset. Fixed effect regression model is used to investigate the hypothetical relationship between IC and firm performance. Further, quantile regression is used to check the robustness of the results. Findings The results indicate that IC efficiency and physical capital efficiency are positively and significantly associated with the firm performance for both the sectors. Regarding the components of IC, the coefficient of human capital efficiency is positive and significant, but the present effort fails to disentangle any significant influence of structural capital efficiency on firm performance. However, the results indicate that the influence of IC efficiency on firm performance is significantly greater in case of knowledge-based sector than that of traditional sector. Practical implications The findings of the study are useful for the decision makers, as the results indicate that the IC plays crucial role in value creation not only for knowledge-based firms but also for the firms belonging to the traditional manufacturing sector. Originality/value In the Indian context, this is the first study to examine the relative importance of IC in a knowledge-based sector and a traditional sector using appropriate methodology.

Intellectual Capital (IC) Determinants: Impact on Productivity of Islamic Banks

“…These findings are supported by Guerrini et al (2014), Kehelwalatenna (2016), Maji and Goswami (2016), and Yalama (2013) and among others.…”

“…The more debt a company has, the riskier its stock is since debtholders have the first claim to a company's assets. In line with previous VAIC literature, firm leverage is measured using the ratio of total debt to book value of total assets (Dzenopoljac et al, 2016;Guerrini et al, 2014;Maji & Goswami, 2016;Mondal & Ghosh, 2012;Yalama, 2013). Figure 2 represents the overall conceptual framework developed in this research.…”

Intellectual capital in Indonesia: dynamic panel approach

“…Then logically, the knowledge-intensive companies that utilize the intellectual capital more efficiently will be perceived higher by the investors. In other words, the influence of IC on firm performance and market value is significantly higher in high-level of knowledge industry than that of in low-level of knowledge industry (Tan et al, 2007;Maji and Goswami, 2016). Accordingly, this research proposes the following hypotheses:…”

“…H2: MVAIC will be positively related to the market value of the company H2a: HCE will be positively related to the market value of the company H2b: SCE will be positively related to the market value of the company H2c: RCE will be positively related to the market value of the company H2d: CEE will be positively related to the market value of the company Furthermore, companies in different industries will emphasize and manage the assets differently, including their capabilities in handling IC to achieve their objectives (Chen et al, 2005;Liang et al, 2011). Maji and Goswami (2016) have proven that the influence of intellectual capital on firm performance is significantly higher in knowledgebased sector of industry compared to traditional one. This result is in accordance with the stakeholder theory, which stated that the technology-based or knowledge-intensive industry would employ more IC to achieve higher profit compared to traditional industry.…”

Benchmarking Intangible Assets in the Water Sector: an Evidence from Indonesia

“…Intangible assets are non-physical assets that generate valueadded to the company in the future. They are dynamic by nature and built on knowledge and competence, such as organisational structure, skills, R&D innovation, and intellectual capital (Tsai et al, 2012;Dženopoljac et al, 2016;Maji and Goswami, 2016;Deep and Narwal, 2013).…”