Advertisement

Introduction

  • Katrin Blankenburg
Chapter
  • 515 Downloads
Part of the Contributions to Management Science book series (MANAGEMENT SC.)

Abstract

This first chapter introduces the relevance of the topic, the motivation for and importance of the research on intellectual capital (IC) in German non-profit organisations (NPOs). IC is recognised as competitive advantage (Kong & Prior, International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 13, 119–128, 2008; Kong, Journal of Intellectual Capital, 11, 284–304) and thus as essential for the survival of any organisation, including NPOs. NPOs cannot signal success and that they are worthy of support via profits or for instance. However, NPOs can attract new donors, investors, and other stakeholders by highlighting their competitive advantages, ultimately enabling organisations to put a stronger focus on achieving their social goals instead of spending time and resources on worrying about financial aspects. So far, there is no empirical research on IC disclosure of German NPOs.

Keywords

Intellectual Capital (IC) Non-profit Organizations (NPOs) Anheier Qualitative Content Analysis Coding Frame 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Anheier, H. K., & Seibel, W. (1993). Defining the nonprofit sector: Germany. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Institute for Policy Studies.Google Scholar
  2. Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120. doi: 10.1177/014920639101700108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beattie, V., & Thomson, S. J. (2010). Intellectual capital reporting: Academic utopia or corporate reality in a brave new world? Edinburgh: The Institure of Chartered Accountants of Scotland.Google Scholar
  4. Bontis, N., Dragonetti, N., Jacobsen, K., & Roos, G. (1999). The knowledge toolbox: A review of the tools available to measure and manage intangible resources. European Management Journal, 17(4), 391–402. doi: 10.1016/S0263-2373(99)00019-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brüggen, A., Vergauwen, P., & Dao, M. (2009). Determinants of intellectual capital disclosure: Evidence from Australia. Management Decision, 47(2), 233–245. doi: 10.1108/00251740910938894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1–17). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
  7. Dumay, J., & Cai, L. (2014). A review and critique of content analysis as a methodology for inquiring into IC disclosure. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 15(2), 264–290. doi: 10.1108/JIC-01-2014-0010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dumay, J., & Cai, L. (2015). Using content analysis as a research methodology for investigating intellectual capital disclosure: A critique. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 16(1), 121–155. doi: 10.1108/JIC-04-2014-0043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Edvinsson, L. (1997). Developing intellectual capital at Skandia. Long Range Planning, 30(3), 366–373. doi: 10.1016/S0024-6301(97)00016-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Freeman, R. E., & McVea, J. A. (2001). A stakeholder approach to strategic management. Charlottesville, VA. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.263511.
  11. Gläser, J., & Laudel, G. (2010). Experteninterviews und qualitative inhaltsanalyse (4th ed.). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grossekettler, H. (2006). Verbände zwischen Markt und Staat aus finanzwirtschaftlicher Sicht. In H.-J. Schmidt-Trenz & R. Stober (Eds.), Jahrbuch Recht und Ökonomik des Dritten Sektors 2005/2006 (RÖDS) (pp. 13–35). Baden Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft.Google Scholar
  13. Guthrie, J. (2001). The management, measurement and the reporting of intellectual capital. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 2(1), 27–41. doi: 10.1108/14691930110380473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Guthrie, J., Ricceri, F., & Dumay, J. (2012). Reflections and projections: A decade of intellectual capital accounting research. The British Accounting Review, 44(2), 68–82. doi: 10.1016/j.bar.2012.03.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hall, M. L. W. (1998). The confusion of the capitals: Surveying the cluttered landscape of intellectual ‘capitals’ and terminology. In P. H. Sullivan (Ed.), Profiting from intellectual capital – Extracting value from innovation (pp. 76–83). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  16. Helmig, B., & Boenigk, S. (2012). Nonprofit mangement. München: Verlag Franz Vahlen GmbH.Google Scholar
  17. InCaS. (2008). Intellectual capital statement – Made in Europe. Accessed January 31, 2010, from www.incas-europe.org
  18. Keehley, P., & Abercrombie, N. N. (2008). Benchmarking in the public and nonprofit sectors (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Wiley.Google Scholar
  19. Kong, E. (2003). Using intellectual capital as a strategic tool for non-profit organisations. The International Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Change Management, 3(1), 467–474.Google Scholar
  20. Kong, E. (2007a). A review of the strategic management literature: The importance of intellectual capital in the non-profit sector. In 28th McMaster world congress on intellectual capital and innovation (pp. 1–26). Hamilton, ON: McMaster University. doi: 10.1108/14691930710830864.Google Scholar
  21. Kong, E. (2007b). The strategic importance of intellectual capital in the non-profit sector. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 8(4), 721–731. doi: 10.1108/14691930710830864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kong, E. (2008). The development of strategic management in the non-profit context: Intellectual capital in social service non-profit organizations. International Journal of Management Reviews, 10(3), 281–299. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2007.00224.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kong, E. (2010a). Analyzing BSC and IC’s usefulness in nonprofit organizations. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 11(3), 284–304. doi: 10.1108/14691931011064554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kong, E. (2010b). Intellectual capital and non-profit organizations in the knowledge economy: Editorial and introduction to special issue. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 11(2), 97–106. doi: 10.1108/14691931011039624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kong, E., & Prior, D. (2008). An intellectual capital perspective of competitive advantage in nonprofit organisations. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 13, 119–128. doi: 10.1002/nvsm.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. KPMG. (2012). Rechnungslegung in der Praxis – Bilanzierungs- und Bewertungsfragen nach deutschem Recht bei Non-Profit-Organisationen, (Homepage). Accessed January 08, 2014, from http://www.kpmg.com/DE/de/Bibliothek/2012/Seiten/Rechnungslegung-in-der-Praxis.aspx
  27. Lichtsteiner, H., Gmür, M., Giroud, C., & Schauer, R. (2013). Das Freiburger Management-Modell für Nonprofit Organisationen (7th ed.). Bern: Haupt Verlag.Google Scholar
  28. Marr, B., & Roos, G. (2005). A strategy perspective on intellectual capital. In B. Marr (Ed.), Perspectives on intellectual capital (pp. 28–41). Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mayring, P. (1996). Einführung in die qualitative Sozialforschung (3rd ed.). Weinheim: Psychologie Verlags Union.Google Scholar
  30. Möller, K., & Gamerschlag, R. (2009). Immaterielle Vermögenswerte in der Unternehmenssteuerung - betriebswirtschaftliche Perspektiven und Herausforderungen. In K. Möller, M. Piwinger, & A. Zerfaß (Eds.), Immaterielle Vermögenswerte – Bewertung, Berichterstattung und Kommunikation (pp. 3–21). Stuttgart: Schäffer-Poeschel Verlag Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  31. Petrash, G. (1996). Dow’ s journey to a knowledge value management culture. European Management Journal, 73(4), 365–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (2003). The external control of organizations. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Post, J. E., Preston, L. E., & Sachs, S. (2002). Managing the extended enterprise – The new stakeholder view. California Management Review, 45(1), 6–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Priller, E., Zimmer, A., Anheier, H. K., Toepler, S. & Salamon, L. M. (1999). Germany: Unification and change. In Global civil society: Dimensions of the nonprofit sector (pp. 99–118). Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies. Accessed March 24, 2012, from http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl= en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:Global+Civil+Society+Dimensions+of+the+Nonprofit+Sector#4
  35. Reed, M. S., Graves, A., Dandy, N., Posthumus, H., Hubacek, K., Morris, J., et al. (2009). Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(5), 1933–1949. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.01.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Salamon, L. M., & Anheier, H. K. (1992). In search of the non-profit sector II: The problem of classification. Baltimore, MD. doi: 10.1007/BF01397460. Accessed March 24, 2012, from http://www.springerlink.com/index/K1UQQ84225324356.pdf
  37. Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
  38. van Broekhoven, R. A. (2008). Engaging Donors’ Trust. Accessed February 20, 2014, from http://www.icfo.org/ICFO-Publications
  39. Wex, T. (2004). Der Nonprofit-Sektor der Organisationsgesellschaft (1st ed.). Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zimmer, A., & Priller, E. (2007). Gemeinnützige Organisationen im gesellschaftlichen Wandel (2nd ed.). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katrin Blankenburg
    • 1
  1. 1.Hamburg University of Applied SciencesHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations