Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Does ownership structure matter for corporate intellectual capital performance? An empirical test in the Iranian context

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Eurasian Business Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of the this paper is to study the relationship between types of ownership on intellectual capital performance (ICP) and its components in the companies listed in Tehran Stock Exchange. The results show that there is a significant positive relationship between ownership concentration,corporate, institutional ownership and ICP and that state ownership is negatively associated with ICP. Moreover, individual ownership has no significant relationship with ICP. Intellectual capital paradigms require corporate governance members to think holistically about all the intangible resources that can be used to create value through both intra-organizational and extra-organizational relationships.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We are grateful to our anonymous referee for this suggestion.

References

  • Agrawal, A., & Knoeber, C. (1996). Firm performance and mechanisms to control agency problems between managers and shareholders. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 31, 377–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alipour, M. (2012). The effect of intellectual capital on firm performance: an investigation of Iran insurance companies. Measuring Business Excellence, 16(1), 53–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alipour, M. (2013). An investigation of the association between ownership structure and corporate performance: empirical evidence from Tehran Stock Exchange (TSE). Management Research Review, 36(11), 1137–1166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andriessen, D. (2004). Making sense of intellectual capital: designing a method for the valuation of intangibles. Burlington: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnhart, S. W., & Rosenstein, S. (1998). Board composition, managerial ownership, and firm performance: an empirical analysis. The Financial Review, 33, 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beiner, S., Drobetz, W., Schmid, M. M., & Zimmermann, H. (2006). An integrated framework of corporate governance and firm valuation. European Financial Management, 12(2), 249–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berle, A., & Means, G. (1932). The modern corporation and private property, harcourt. New York: Brace & World.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bontis, N. (1998). Intellectual capital: exploratory study that develops measures and models. Management Decision, 36(2), 63–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bontis, N. (2001). Assessing knowledge assets: a review of the models used to measure Intellectual Capital. International Journal of Management Reviews, 3(1), 41–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brancato, C.K. (2005). Institutional investment report. Conference Board: New York.

  • Carpenter, M., Sanders, W., & Gregersen, H. (2001). ‘Bundling human capital with firm context: the impact of international assignment experience on multinational firm performance and CEO pay. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 493–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, A. (1962). Strategy and structure. Cambridge: The M.I.T Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, M. C., Cheng, S. J., & Hwang, Y. (2005). An empirical investigation of the relationship between intellectual capital and firms’ market value and financial performance. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 6(2), 159–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, M. H. (1998). Ownership structure investment and the corporate value: an empirical analysis. Journal of Financial Economics, 47, 103–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chu, P. Y., Lin, Y. L., Hsiung, H. H., & Liu, T. Y. (2006). Intellectual capital: an empirical study of ITRI. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 73, 886–902.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colombo, M. G., Croce, A., & Murtinu, S. (2014). Ownership Structure, Horizontal Agency Costs and the Performance of High-Tech Entrepreneurial Firms. Small Business Economics, 42(2), 265–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connelly, B. L., Hoskisson, R. E., Tihanyi, L., & Certo, S. T. (2010). Ownership as a Form of Corporate Governance. Journal of Management Studies, 47(8), 1561–1589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delmas, M., & Toffel, M. W. (2004). Stakeholders and environmental management practices: an institutional framework. Business Strategy and Environment, 13(4), 209–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demsetz, H. (1983). The structure of ownership and the theory of the firm. Journal of Law and Economics, 26, 375–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demsetz, H., & Villalonga, B. (2001). Ownership Structure and Corporate Performance. Journal of Corporate Finance, 7, 209–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edvinsson, L., & Malone, M. S. (1997). Intellectual capital. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fama, E. F., & Jensen, M. C. (1983). Separation of ownership and control. Journal of Law and Economics, 26(2), 301–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldeng, E., Grünfeld, L. A., & Benito, G. R. G. (2008). The performance differential between private and state owned enterprises: the roles of ownership, management and market structure. Journal of Management Studies, 45(7), 1244–1273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grosfeld, I., & Hashi, I. (2007). Changes in ownership concentration in mass privatized firms: evidence from Poland and the Czech Republic. Corporate Governance: an International Review, 15(4), 520–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hitt, M. A., Bierman, L., Shimizu, K., & Kochhar, R. (2001). Direct and moderating effects of human capital on strategy and performance in professional service firms: a resource-based perspective”. Academy of Management Journal, 44(1), 13–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ho, C. A., & Williams, S. M. (2003). International comparative analysis of the association between board structure and the efficiency of value added by a firm from its physical capital and intellectual capital resources. The International Journal of Accounting, 38(4), 465–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: managerial behavior, agency costs and capital structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3, 305–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keenan, J., & Aggestam, M. (2001). Corporate governance and intellectual capital: some conceptualizations. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 9(4), 259–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, P. (1985). A guide to econometrics, 2nd ed., MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

  • La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., & Shleifer, A. (1999). Corporate ownership around the world. The Journal of Finance, 54, 471–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liebeskind, J. P. (1996). Knowledge, strategy, and the theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(2), 93–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, Q. & Wong, K.P. (2011). Intellectual Capital and Financing Decisions: Evidence from the U.S. Patent Data. Management Science, 57(10), 1861–1878.

  • Marr, B. (2004). Measuring and benchmarking intellectual capital. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 11(6), 559–570.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marr, B. & Gray, D. (2002). The internal and external drivers of measuring intellectual capital. Proceedings of Transparent Enterprise Conference, Madrid.

  • Marr, B., Gray, D., & Neely, A. (2003). Why do firms measure their intellectual capital? Journal of Intellectual Capital, 4, 441–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marr, B. & Schiuma, G. (2001). Measuring and managing intellectual capital and knowledge assets in new economy. In Bourne, M. (Ed.), Handbook of Performance Measurement, Gee, London, pp. 1–30.

  • Marr, B., Schiuma, G., & Neely, A. (2004). The dynamics of value creation: mapping your intellectual performance drivers. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 5, 312–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, S., & Parker, D. (1995). Privatization and economic performance throughout the UK business cycle. Managerial and Decision Economics, 16, 225–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McConnell, J., & Servaes, H. (1990). Additional evidence on equity ownership and corporate value. Journal of Financial Economics, 27, 595–612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicholson, G. J., & Kiel, G. C. (2004). A framework for diagnosing board effectiveness. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 12, 442–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2008). Intellectual assets and value creation—synthesis report. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oh, W. Y., Chang, Y. K., & Martynov, A. (2011). The effect of ownership structure on corporate social responsibility: empirical evidence from Korea. Journal of Business Ethics, 104(2), 283–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perrini, F., Rossi, G., & Rovetta, B. (2008). Does ownership structure affect performance? Evidence from the Italian Market, Corporate Governance: An International Review, 16(4), 312–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pound, J. (1988). Proxy contests and the efficiency of shareholder oversight. Journal of Financial Economics, 20, 237–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pulic, A. (2000). VAIC™—an accounting tool for IC management. International Journal of Technology Management, 20(5–8), 702–714.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pulic, A. (2004). Intellectual capital—does it create or destroy value? Measuring Business Excellence, 8(1), 62–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rangone, A. (1997). Linking organizational effectiveness, key success factors and performance measures: an analytical framework. Management Accounting Research, 8(2), 207–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed, K. K., Lubatkin, M., & Srinivasan, N. (2006). Proposing and testing an intellectual capital-based view of the firm. Journal of Management Studies, 43(4), 867–893.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roos, J., Roos, G., Edvinsson, L., & Dragonetti, N. C. (1998). Intellectual capital: Navigating in the new business landscape. New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiuma, G., & Lerro, A. (2008). Intellectual capital and company’s performance improvement. Measuring Business Excellence, 12(2), 3–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Serenko, A., Bontis, N., & Hardie, T. (2007). Organizational size and knowledge flow: a proposed theoretical link. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 8(4), 610–627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shiu, H. (2006). The application of the Value Added Intellectual Coefficient to Measure Corporate Performance: evidence from Technological Firms. International Journal of Management., 23(2), 356–365.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1986). Large shareholders and corporate control. Journal of Political Economy, 94(3), 461–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. (1997). A survey of corporate governance. The Journal of Finance, 52, 737–783.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, T. A. (1997). Intellectual capital: the new wealth of nations. New York: Doubleday Dell Publishing Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sun, Q., & Tong, W. H. S. (2003). China share issue privatization: the extent of its success. Journal of Financial Economics, 70, 183–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sveiby, E. (1997). The new organizational wealth: managing and measurement knowledge based assets. San Francisco: Berret Koehler.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swartz, N. P., & Firer, S. (2005). Board Structure and Intellectual Capital Performance in South Africa. Meditari Accountancy Research, 13(2), 145–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tian, L. (2001).Government shareholding and the value of China’s modern firm, William Davidson Institute, Working Paper, No. 395, University of Michigan.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vergauwen, P. (2007). Intellectual capital disclosure and intangible value drivers: an empirical study. Management Decision, 45(7), 1163–1180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wei, Z., Xie, F., & Zhang, S. (2005). Ownership structure and firm value in China’s privatized firms: 1991-2001. Journal of financial and quantitative analysis, 40(1), 87–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wortzel, H. V., & Wortzel, L. H. (1989). Privatization: not the only answer. World Development, 17, 633–641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wyatt, A., & Frick, H. (2010). Accounting for Investments in Human Capital: a Review. Australian Accounting Review, 20(3), 199–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Youndt, M. A., Subramaniam, M., & Snell, S. A. (2004). Intellectual capital profiles: an examination of investment and return. Journal of Management Studies, 41(2), 335–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeghal, D., & Maaloul, A. (2010). Analyzing value added as an indicator of intellectual capital and its consequences on company performance. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 11(1), 39–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeitun, R., & Tian, G. G. (2007). Does ownership affect a firm’s performance and default risk in Jordan? Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 7(1), 66–82.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Professor Marco Vivarelli the EDITOR-IN-CHIEF; Professor Mariacristina Piva the ASSOCIATE EDITOR (Università Cattolica del Sacro CuoreItaly) and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier versions of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Accounting, Faculty of Social Science, Razi University, Kermanshah, Iran

    Farhad Shahveisi & Farshid Khairollahi

  2. Young Researchers and Elite Clube, Khalkhal Branch, Islamic Azad University, Khalkhal, Ardebil, Iran

    Mohammad Alipour

Authors
  1. Farhad Shahveisi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Farshid Khairollahi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mohammad Alipour
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohammad Alipour.

Appendix A

Appendix A

The hypotheses

H1: There is a significant positive relationship between ownership Concentration and intellectual capital performance.

H2: There is a significant positive relationship between ownership concentration and the components of intellectual capital:

H2-a: There is a significant positive relationship between ownership concentration and value added human capital (VAHC).

H2-b: There is a significant positive relationship between ownership concentration and structural capital value added (SCVA).

H2-c: There is a significant positive relationship between ownership concentration and value added capital employed (VACA).

H3: There is a significant negative relationship between state ownership and intellectual capital performance.

H4: There is a significant negative relationship between state ownership and the components of intellectual capital.

H4-a: There is a significant negative relationship between state ownership and value added human capital (VAHC).

H4-b: There is a significant negative relationship between state ownership and structural capital value added (SCVA).

H4-c: There is a significant negative relationship between state ownership and value added capital employed (VACA).

H5: There is a significant negative relationship between individual ownership and intellectual capital performance.

H6: There is a significant negative relationship between individual ownership and the components of intellectual capital performance.

H6-a: There is a significant negative relationship between individual ownership and value added human capital (VAHC).

H6-b: There is a significant negative relationship between individual ownership and structural capital value added (SCVA).

H6-c: There is a significant negative relationship between individual ownership and value added capital employed (VACA).

H7: There is a significant positive relationship between corporate ownership and intellectual capital performance.

H8: There is a significant positive relationship between corporate ownership and the component of intellectual capital performance.

H8-a: There is a significant positive relationship between corporate ownership and value added human capital (VAHC).

H8-b: There is a significant positive relationship between corporate ownership and structural capital value added (SCVA).

H8-c: There is a significant positive relationship between corporate ownership and value added capital employed (VACA).

H9: There is a significant positive relationship between institutional ownership and intellectual capital performance.

H10: There is a significant positive relationship between institutional ownership and the components of intellectual capital performance.

H10-a: There is a significant positive relationship between institutional ownership and value added human capital (VAHC).

H10-b: There is a significant positive relationship between institutional ownership and structural capital value added (SCVA).

H10-c: There is a significant positive relationship between institutional ownership and value added capital employed (VACA).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shahveisi, F., Khairollahi, F. & Alipour, M. Does ownership structure matter for corporate intellectual capital performance? An empirical test in the Iranian context. Eurasian Bus Rev 7, 67–91 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40821-016-0050-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40821-016-0050-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation