Articlegreen2009

Intangible liabilities: beyond models of intellectual assets

Mercedes García Parra · Pep Simó · Jose Maria Sallan · Juan Mundet

48 citations0/0 files storedManagement Decision

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Intellectual Capital and Performance Analysis Accounting Theory and Financial Reporting Knowledge Management and Sharing

Abstract

Purpose Most models of intellectual capital measurment equal intellectual capital with intellectual assets. Nevertheless, companies sometimes must incur liabilities to make intellectual assets truly actionable. This fact suggests the existence of intangible liabilities. The aim of this paper is to refine the methods of assessment of intellectual capital by refining and extending the concept of intangible liabilities. Design/methodology/approach The paper consists of a literature review of prior conceptualisations of intangible liabilities, and an empirical exploration of the employer‐employee relationships that can originate intangible liabilities. Findings The results of the empirical research show that a non‐fulfilment of perceived obligations by the company might cause organisational members to refrain from deploying their organisational knowledge in organisational processes. Thus, these obligations can be conceptualised as intangible liabilities. Research limitations/implications The research has only explored intangible liabilities related to organisational members. Future research should explore the intangible liabilities that an organisation can incur with other constituencies, e.g. suppliers and clients. Practical implications Managers can improve their models of intellectual capital measurement taking into account not only the intangible assets, but also the intangible liabilities. Taking into account intangible liabilities should bring awareness of the conditions that might hinder the deployment of organisational knowledge. Originality/value The study brings a more refined, theoretically‐ and empirically‐based conceptualisation of intangible liabilities than those provided so far, aiding to develop a more robust theory of intellectual capital measurement.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 48 citations exist upstream.

References

1994Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches 1997The Knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation 1989Asset Stock Accumulation and Sustainability of Competitive Advantage 1997The balanced scorecard: Translating strategy into action 1996The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation 1985Survey Research Methods.1997The New Organizational Wealth: Managing and Measuring Knowledge-Based Assets 1998Capturing Value from Knowledge Assets: The New Economy, Markets for Know-How, and Intangible Assets

Cited by

2016Individual intellectual capital versus collective intellectual capital in a meta-organization 2013A look on the other side: investigating intellectual liabilities 2015Rome wasn’t built in a day … reflecting on time, intellectual capital and intellectual liabilities 2011A study on intangible assets disclosure: An evidence from Indian companies 2010Towards the convergence of accounting treatment for intangible assets

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.