Advertisement

National Intellectual Capital Influence on Innovation and Sustainability

  • Valter VairinhosEmail author
  • Florinda Matos
  • Ana Josefa Matos
Chapter

Abstract

Sustainability is nowadays a main objective of society. It is not enough to struggle for economic development; this development and innovation that supports it must have in due count people happiness and ecological restrictions. Given the global pressure on innovation capabilities and sustainability of ecosystems, many studies try to measure the economic development of countries, linking it to investment in Intellectual Capital.

In this context, intangible assets management and, specifically, Intellectual Capital (IC) and Knowledge Management (KM), became generally acknowledged Innovation factors. This chapter is about the possible causal relations between the concepts National Intellectual Capital (NIC), Innovation (INOV), Competitivity (COMP) and Sustainability (SUST).

Seeing IC as a creative potential for new ideas and concepts, it is generally believed that Innovation, being the potential of transformation of new ideas and concepts into real products and services, is strongly influenced (caused) by IC: after all, the innovation must be preceded by the idea. In the same way, the efficiency of transformation of new ideas into products seems to heavily depend on new ideas related with industrial production, work organization and management, which seems to justify the notion that it makes sense to assume causal effects between IC and INOV and IC and COMP. Although IC, INOV and COMP have specific pathways in each country, it makes also sense to assume that all these variables affect, negatively or positively, the wellbeing of future generations. This chapter is a quantitative research on the validity of these theoretical hypotheses. Having this target in mind, an exploratory model for those relations was built and estimated using observational available open data from international sources for each one off the mentioned variables. The main supporting methodologies employed were descriptive multivariate data analysis techniques and PLS path modelling. In terms of originality, this empirical study aims to contribute to stimulate the emergence of data driven discussions about the factors that determine the sustainability of countries, aiming the formulation of policies and strategic planning.

Keywords

Intellectual Capital Innovation Competitivity Sustainability 

References

  1. Andriessen, D. (2004). Making sense of intellectual capital: Designing a method for the valuation of intangibles. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  2. Andriessen, D., & Stam, C. (2004). Intellectual capital of the European Union: Measuring the Lisbon agenda. Holland University of professional education, de Baak—Management Centre VNO-NCW: Centre for Research in Intellectual Capital. [Online]. Retrieved January 26, 2018, from https://www.bvekennis.nl/Bibliotheek/05-0048_Measuring_Lisbon_agenda.pdf
  3. Andriessen, D., & Stam, C. (2005). Intellectual capital of the European Union. ON, Canada: Hamilton.Google Scholar
  4. Atkinson, R. D. (2002). The 2002 State New Economy Index: Benchmarking economic transformation in the states. The Progressive Policy Institute. [Online]. Retrieved January 26, 2018, from http://www.itif.org/files/2002-new-state-econ-index.pdf
  5. Bontis, N. (2005). National intellectual capital index: The benchmarking of Arab countries. In A. Bounfour & L. Edvinsson (Eds.), Intellectual capital for communities: Nations, regions, and cities (pp. 113–138). Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth–Heinemann.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bounfour, A. (2005). Assessing performance of European innovations systems: An intellectual capital indexes perspective. In A. Bounfour & L. Edvinsson (Eds.), Intellectual capital for communities: Nations, regions, and cities (pp. 97–112). Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth–Heinemann.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bradley, K. (1997). Intellectual capital and the new wealth of nations. Business, Strategy Review, 8(1), 53–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen, D. H. C., & Dahlman, C. J.. (2005, October 19). The knowledge economy, the KAM methodology and World Bank operations. World Bank Institute Working Chapter No. 37256. [Online]. Retrieved January 26, 2018, from https://ssrn.com/abstract=841625
  9. Corrado, C., Hulten, C., & Sichel, D. (2009). Intangible capital and U.S. economic growth. Review of Income and Wealth, 55, 661–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Edvinsson, L. (2002). Corporate longitude: Navigating the knowledge economy. BookHouse Pub.Google Scholar
  11. Edvinsson, L., & Malone, M. S. (1997). Intellectual capital: Realizing your company’s true value by finding its hidden brainpower. New York, NY: HarperBusiness.Google Scholar
  12. Edvinsson, L., & Stenfelt, C. (1999). Intellectual capital of nations for future wealth creation. Journal of Human Resource Costing and Accounting, 4(1), 21–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. EIS. (2011). European innovation scoreboard 2011: Comparative analysis of innovation performance. MERIT. [Online]. Retrieved January 26, 2018, from https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/705c770c-68f7-4f90-ac2b-618cc6cc8ed7/language-en/format-PDF
  14. Lazuka, V. (2012). National intellectual capital: Concept and measurement. Master thesis, School of Economics and Management, Lund University.Google Scholar
  15. Lin, C. Y.-Y., & Edvinsson, L. (2008). National intellectual capital: Comparison of the Nordic countries. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 9(4), 525–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lin, C. Y.-Y., & Edvinsson, L. (2011). National intellectual capital: A comparison of 40 countries. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lin, C. Y.-Y., Edvinsson, L., Chen, J., & Beding, T. (2013). National intellectual capital and the financial crisis in Greece, Italy, Portugal, and Spain. New York: Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Luca, M., Bolici, R., & Deakin, M. (2017). The first two decades of smart-city research: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Urban Technology, 24(1), 3–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Malhotra, Y. (2000). Knowledge assets in the global economy: Assessment of national intellectual capital. Journal of Global Information Management, 8, 5–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Malhotra, Y. (2003). Measuring knowledge assets of a nation: Knowledge systems for development. In Ad Hoc Group meeting Knowledge for Development.Google Scholar
  21. Matos, F., Vairinhos, V., & Rodrigues, S. (2015). Mapping the intellectual capital of cities and regions. In Proceedings GBATA 2015, 17th Annual International Conference of the Global Business and Technology Association, Peniche, Portugal.Google Scholar
  22. Meritum. (2001). Guidelines for managing and reporting on intangibles (intellectual capital report). [Online]. Retrieved January 26, 2018, from http://www.pnbukh.com/files/pdf_filer/MERITUM_Guidelines.pdf
  23. Mouritsen, J., Bukh, P., & Marr, B. (2003). Intellectual capital statements—The new guideline. Copenhagen: Danish Ministry of Sciences Technology and Innovation.Google Scholar
  24. Navarro, J. L. A., Ruiz, V. R. L., & Peña, D. N. (2011). Estimation of intellectual capital in the European Union using a knowledge model. Zbornik Radova Ekonomskog Fakultet u Rijeci, 29(1), 109–132.Google Scholar
  25. OECD. (2006). Intellectual assets and value creation: Implications for corporate reporting. Paris: OECD. [Online]. Retrieved January 26, 2018, from www.oecd.org/dataoecd/2/40/37811196.pdf
  26. OECD. (2012, May 23–24). OECD week. Meeting of the OECD Council at Ministerial Level. Paris. [Online]. Retrieved January 26, 2018, from http://www.oecd.org/general/50452962.pdf
  27. Pasher, E. (1999). The intellectual capital of the state of Israel. Herzlia Pituach, Edna Pasher & Associates.Google Scholar
  28. Pasher, E., & Shachar, S. (2005). The intellectual capital of the state of Israel. In A. Bounfour & L. Edvinsson (Eds.), Intellectual capital for communities (pp. 139–150). Jordan Hill, Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth–Heinemann.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pasher, E., & Shachar, S. (2007). The intellectual capital of the state of Israel: 60 years of achievement. [Online]. Retrieved January 26, 2018, from https://innovationisrael.org.il/sites/default/files/מאזן%20ההון%20האינטלקטואלי%20של%20מדינת%20ישראל%20-%20Intellectual%20Capital.pdf
  30. Pearl, J. (2010). An introduction to causal inference.  https://doi.org/10.2202/1557-4679.1203 [Online]. Retrieved January 26, 2018, from https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/ijb.2010.6.2/ijb.2010.6.2.1203/ijb.2010.6.2.1203.xml
  31. Pulic, A. (2005). Value creation efficiency at national and regional levels: Case study—Croatia and the European Union. In A. Bounfour & L. Edvinsson (Eds.), Intellectual capital for communities: Nations, regions, and cities (pp. 197–213). Jordan Hill, Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth–Heinemann.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rembe, A. (1999). The governmental invest in Sweden agency—ISA: Report 1999. Stockholm: Halls Offset AB.Google Scholar
  33. Rodrigues, L. L., Tejedo-Romero, F., & Craig, R. (2017). Corporate governance and intellectual capital reporting in a period of financial crisis: Evidence from Portugal. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, 14(1), 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Saisana & Philippas (2012). Sustainable society index (SSI): Taking societies’ pulse along social, environmental and economic issues.  https://doi.org/10.2788/6330.
  35. Sanchez, G. (2013). PLS path modeling with R. Berkeley: Trowchez Editions.Google Scholar
  36. Schiuma, G., Lerro, A., & Carlucci, D. (2008). The knoware tree and the regional intellectual capital index: An assessment within Italy. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 9(2).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ståhle, P., & Bounfour, A. (2008). Understanding dynamics of intellectual capital of nations. Journal of Intellectual Capital, special issue of Intellectual Capital of Communities: The Next Step, 9, 164–177.Google Scholar
  38. Ståhle, S., & Ståhle, P. (2012). Towards measures of national intellectual capital: An analysis of the CHS model. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 13, 164–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. UN. (2012). A/66/L.56 The future we want. [Online]. Retrieved January 26, 2018, from http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_66_288.pdf
  40. UN. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Retrieved February 3, 2018, from http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E
  41. UNDP. (2000). Survey of economic and social development in the ESCWA region 1999–2000, United National Development Programme Research Paper. New York. [Online]. Retrieved January 26, 2018, from https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/428618/files/E_ESCWA_ED_2000_2-EN.pdf
  42. UNPAN. (2003, September 4–5). Expanding public space for the development of the knowledge society. In Ad Hoc Expert Group Meeting on Knowledge Systems for Development. [Online]. Retrieved January 26, 2018, from www.unpan.org
  43. Utama, A. A. G. S., & Mirhard, R. R. (2016). The influence of sustainability report disclosure as moderating variable towards the impact of intellectual capital on company’s performance. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 6(3), 1262–1269.Google Scholar
  44. Vairinhos, V. M. (2003). Desarrollo de un Sistema para Minería de Datos Basado en los Métodos Biplot. Tesis Doctoral. Salamanca, España: Universidad de Salamanca (USAL).Google Scholar
  45. Van Buuren, S. (2000). Multivariate imputation by chained equations. MICE V1.0 User’s manual.Google Scholar
  46. Van de Kerk, G., & Manuel, A. (2014). Sustainable society index 2014. The Sustainable Society Foundation.Google Scholar
  47. Viedma, J. M. (2001). ICBS intellectual capital benchmarking system. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 2(2), 148–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Viedma, J. M. (2003). CICBS: Cities’ International Capital Benchmarking System. A methodology and a framework for measuring and managing intellectual capital of cities. A practical application in the city of Mataró. [Online]. Retrieved January 26, 2018, from http://intellectualcapitalmanagementsystems.com/publicaciones/CICBS.pdf
  49. Vinzi, V. E., Chin, W. W., Henseles, J., & Wag, H. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of partial least squares: Concepts, methods and applications. London: Springer.Google Scholar
  50. WEF. (2006). The Lisbon Review: Measuring Europe’s progress in reform. World Economic Forum. [Online]. Retrieved January 26, 2018, from http://akgul.bilkent.edu.tr/WEF/2006/lisbonreview-report2006.pdf
  51. WEF. (2008). The Lisbon Review 2008: Measuring Europe’s progress in reform. World Economic Forum. [Online]. Retrieved January 26, 2018, from http://akgul.bilkent.edu.tr/WEF/2008/TheLisbonReview2008.pdf
  52. WEF. (2010). The Lisbon Review 2010: Towards a more competitive Europe? [Online]. Retrieved January 26, 2018, from https://pt.scribd.com/document/30852400/The-Lisbon-Review-2010
  53. Weziak, D. (2007). Measurement of national intellectual capital: Application to EU countries. IRISS Working Paper Series, 2007 (pp. 1–45).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Valter Vairinhos
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Florinda Matos
    • 1
    • 3
  • Ana Josefa Matos
    • 1
  1. 1.ICLabICAA—Intellectual Capital AssociationSantarémPortugal
  2. 2.CINAV—Naval Research Centre Escola NavalAlmadaPortugal
  3. 3.DINÂMIA’CET-IUL—ISCTE-IULLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations