Hôpital du Sart Tilman CHU Ourthe - Amblève CHU N.D. des Bruyères Policlinique Brull.
Chu 2011 Empirical Study of Impact of Intellectual Capital on Business Performance
-
Upload
dessy-maharani -
Category
Documents
-
view
22 -
download
3
Transcript of Chu 2011 Empirical Study of Impact of Intellectual Capital on Business Performance
N:\Sam-publications\published articles\journals\final draft\Chu 2011 Empirical Study of the Impact of Intellectual Capital on Business
Performance.doc 11/5/2010 1
Cited as: Chu, S.K.W. & Chan, K.H., Yu, K.Y., Ng, H.T. & Wong, W.K. An Empirical
Study of the Impact of Intellectual Capital on Business Performance. Journal of
Information & Knowledge Management. Forthcoming 2011.
Title: An Empirical Study of the Impact of Intellectual Capital on Business Performance
Authors: Samuel Kai Wah Chu* [email protected]
Kin Hang Chan† [email protected]
Ka Yin Yu* [email protected]
Hing Tai Ng, [email protected]
Wai Kwan Wong* [email protected]
* Faculty of Education, the University of Hong Kong, HKSAR
† Institute for China Business, School of Professional and Continuing Education, the
University of Hong Kong, HKSAR
N:\Sam-publications\published articles\journals\final draft\Chu 2011 Empirical Study of the Impact of Intellectual Capital on Business
Performance.doc 11/5/2010 2
Abstract
This empirical study examines the intellectual capital (IC) performance of Hong Kong
companies and its association with business performance. Data were collected
from constituent companies of the Hang Seng Index listed on the Hong Kong Stock
Exchange (2005 – 2008). An IC measurement, Value Added Intellectual Coefficient
(VAIC™), was utilized to evaluate the IC investment of the companies. Four accounting
ratios: market-to-book value (MB), return on assets (ROA), asset turnover (ATO) and return
on equity (ROE) were used as the indicators of business performance. Regression analyses
were conducted to test the ability of IC and its components to explain the variance in business
performance measures.
No conclusive evidence was found to support the associations between VAIC™ as an
aggregate measure and the four financial indicators. However, components of VAIC™ were
found to predict a substantial variance in business performance. Capital Employed Efficiency
(CEE) was found to be a key factor in predicting business financial performance. Structural
Capital Efficiency (SCE) was found to have a significant effect on businesses‟ market
valuation, as measured by MB, and on profitability, as measured by ROE. Negative
correlations were found between Human Capital Efficiency (HCE) and the financial
indicators. The findings indicate a gap between the traditional accounting perspective and the
value creation perspective, which is central to the VAIC™ methodology in measuring IC.
It is believed that the findings of this research provide insights for business stakeholders of
Hong Kong companies in utilizing IC, particularly the noted impact of structural capital.
While our findings indicate the importance of IC for corporations, as shown by the significant
effect of SCE on ROE, physical and financial assets may still be considered as the key
resources in delivering business success.
Keywords:
Intellectual capital, VAIC™, financial performance, value creation, Hang Seng Index
N:\Sam-publications\published articles\journals\final draft\Chu 2011 Empirical Study of the Impact of Intellectual Capital on Business
Performance.doc 11/5/2010 3
1. Introduction
“Knowledge-based economy” is a term which has been used widely to describe today`s
global economy. Knowledge-based resources have been described as the main sources in
sustaining the competitive advantage of a company (Ting & Lean, 2009). Placing the
emphasis on knowledge production rather than on the production of physical goods has been
suggested to make up value creation (Pulic, 2008). This transformation of values has created
a new perspective in viewing the resources of a company. In recent years, intellectual capital
(IC) has been viewed as a factor that has an impact on business performance and is critical in
the value creation process in a knowledge-based economy (Sveiby, 1997; Lynn, 1998; Pulic,
1998). IC has also been viewed as the roots of a company‟s value (Edvinsson & Malone,
1997). As a result of the increasing recognition of the role of IC in business, researchers have
become keen on assessing its impact on the business performance of companies.
The more traditional and commonly used measures of business performance include the
assessment of productivity, profitability, and market evaluation (Firer & Williams, 2003).
Productivity measures the output conversion of input, while profitability refers to the degree
to which the revenue of a business exceeds its costs. Finally, market evaluation describes the
degree to which the market value of a business surpasses its book value.
While a growing body of research has shown the positive association of IC with the business
performance of a company (Ting & Lean, 2009), this link needs to be confirmed in different
geographic settings and industries (Cabrita & Bontis, 2008). Earlier studies on IC in Hong
Kong have been focused on voluntary reporting (Guthrie, Petty, & Ricceri, 2006; Petty &
Cuganesan, 2005) and IC performance (Young, Su, Fang, & Fang, 2009). A preliminary study
on the impact of IC on organizational performance in Hong Kong has shown a lack of
association between IC and financial performance indicators, which is contrary to the
evidence in other parts of the world (Chan, 2009b). This present research builds on the
studies that have been done so far in Hong Kong. The study investigates the association
between IC and business performance among constituent companies of the Hang Seng Index
(HSI) listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange from 2005-2008. Specifically, multiple
regression was used to examine the association of IC, measured by the Value Added
Intellectual Coefficient (VAIC™), with traditional business performance indicators. The
findings of this study expand on the current knowledge base on the relevance of IC in
N:\Sam-publications\published articles\journals\final draft\Chu 2011 Empirical Study of the Impact of Intellectual Capital on Business
Performance.doc 11/5/2010 4
corporate performance. Furthermore, the findings offer insights for business entities in Hong
Kong, which positions itself as a knowledge-based economy.
1.1 Business Performance Indicators
In a resource-based view of business, benefits that are measured considering both tangible
and intangible assets have gained acceptance (Canibano, Garcia-Ayuso, & Sanchez, 2000).
However, measures of financial performance remain to be the most dominant model in
examining business performance (Hofer, 1983). Financial indicators have been assumed to
reflect the fulfillment of economic goals of a business entity, and these make up a component
of business performance indicators (Venkatraman & Ramanujam, 1986). A number of
accounting- and market-based measures have been utilized as proxy measures to measure
productivity, profitability, and market evaluation. Earlier studies by Firer and colleagues
(Firer & Williams, 2003; Firer & Stainbank, 2003) on IC and business performance have
utilized three measures, namely, Return on Assets (ROA), Asset Turnover (ATO), and Market
to Book Value (MB). ROA was represented by the ratio of the net income to the book value
of total company assets. ATO was the ratio of the total revenue to the total book value of
assets, while MB was the ratio of the total market capitalization to the book value of net
assets. Additionally, Return on Equity (ROE) has been commonly used in financial reporting
and refers to the ratio of net income to the total shareholders‟ equity (Chan, 2009b).
1.2 Intellectual Capital (IC)
Physical capital, which refers to “the traditional inputs of land, labor and capital” (Goh, 2005,
p. 386), has always been a crucial indicator for valuing a company‟s business in the past.
However, although it has been regarded as critical to a company‟s operations, it may not truly
reflect the changes and conditions in today‟s businesses (Mohiuddin et al., 2006).
Conventional accounting indicators may not have adequately considered IC elements,
resulting in an unexplained market premium (Edvinsson & Sullivan, 1996), which was also
noted by Pulic (2008).
The first time IC was discussed in the business context was in the 1990s (Yalama & Coskun,
2007). As explained by Stewart (1997), IC is the greatest source of value and competitive
advantage. This summation of knowledge is value added for the company, and is used in the
business creation process (Zéghal & Maaloul, 2010). Sallen and Selamat (2007) described IC
N:\Sam-publications\published articles\journals\final draft\Chu 2011 Empirical Study of the Impact of Intellectual Capital on Business
Performance.doc 11/5/2010 5
as the aggregation of human capital, structural capital and customer capital. IC has also been
viewed as the result of, or the intellectual property generated from, the process of knowledge
transformation (Ting and Lean, 2009). As stated by Appuhami (2007, p. 14), “the Intellectual
capital of a firm plays a significant role in the modern approach of value creation”. To
summarize, IC may be referred to as the sum of knowledge within an organization, which
involves value creation and gives competitive advantage to business organizations. As
commented by Stewart (1997, p. 56), IC has become so vital that it would be fair to say that
an organization that is not managing knowledge is “not paying attention to business”.
In general, IC can be classified into two major categories: human capital and structural
capital. (Edvinsson, 1997; Edvinsson & Malone, 1997; Bontis, 2004). Human capital “is in
the heads of employees”, while structural capital is “what is left in the organization when
people go home in the evening” (Roos & Roos, 1997, p. 415). The examples that Ting and
Lean (2009, p. 590) used to identify human capital include “innovation capacity, creativity,
know-how and previous experience, teamwork capacity, employee flexibility, tolerance for
ambiguity, motivation, satisfaction, learning capacity, loyalty, formal training and education”.
For structural capital, Bontis et al. (2000) gave examples such as databases, organizational
charts, process manuals, strategies and routines. Properly managed IC has been regarded as
the keydriving factor for sustainable corporate success (Yalama & Coskun, 2007; Ting &
Lean, 2009). However, although IC has been regarded as the key factor influencing the future
value of a firm (Yalama & Coskun, 2007), using traditional financial indicators may not be
sufficient to illustrate the value of IC, as it may only reflect the accountant`s view towards the
performance of the firm and may be misleading to stakeholders (Kamath, 2008). VAIC™
may be a better indicator and method in reflecting the market value of businesses (Young,
Fang & Fang, 2009).
1.3 Value Added Intellectual Coefficient (VAIC™)
Value Added Intellectual Coefficient (VAIC™) is a method developed by Ante Pulic to
measure the value creation efficiency of a company using accounting-based figures (Pulic,
2000). Companies with a higher VAIC™ indicate that they have a higher value creation in
using all available resources, i.e., IC, human capital, structural capital, and physical capital.
N:\Sam-publications\published articles\journals\final draft\Chu 2011 Empirical Study of the Impact of Intellectual Capital on Business
Performance.doc 11/5/2010 6
VAIC™ is considered as a “universal indicator showing abilities of a company in value
creation and representing a measure for business efficiency in a knowledge-based economy”
(Pulic, 1998, p.9). Also, as stated in Kamath (2007, p. 98), VAIC™ is a management and
control tool that is “designated to monitor and measure the IC performance and potential of
the firm”. This indicator has been widely applied in various research studies (see Table 1.1)
as a means of measuring IC (Zéghal & Maaloul, 2010; Chan, 2009a; Kamath, 2008; Tan,
Plowman & Hancock 2007; Yalama & Coskun, 2007; Mohiuddin, Jahibllah & Shahid, 2006;
Shiu, 2006; Goh 2005; Mavridis, 2005; Mavridis, 2004; Firer & Williams, 2003). This
method is “designed to provide information about the value creation efficiency of tangible
and intangible assets within a company during operations” (Tan, Plowman & Hancock, 2007,
p. 91). The concept of “value added” is incorporated in the formulation of VAIC™. Value
added per professional may be regarded as the purest measure to produce economic value in a
knowledge-based company (Sveiby, 2001).
The formulation of VAIC™ matches the definition of IC. First of all, VAIC™ is obtained by
adding Human Capital Efficiency (HCE), Structural Capital Efficiency (SCE) and Capital
Employed Efficiency (CEE), thus incorporating the concept of classifying IC into human
capital and structural capital. Secondly, at present there is more emphasis on the skills and
knowledge of the employees than on the physical assets of a company (Muhammad, 2009).
Due to the active role of value creation in the process (Pulic, 2000), employees‟ expenses are
seen as an investment rather than as a cost in the calculation of VAIC™.
1.4 Prior studies using the VAIC™ methodology
A number of studies have used the VAIC™ methodology in examining IC, and its
associations with other business performance measures have not been consistent. For instance,
Zéghal and Maaloul (2010) found a positive relationship between IC and financial
performance in high-technology industries. Similarly, a study on Taiwan‟s companies found
that IC investment had a positive impact on a firm‟s market value and financial performance
(Chen, Cheng & Hwang, 2005). However, Firer and Williams (2003) found that physical
capital was the most significant underlying resource of corporate performance in South Africa,
and Chan (2009b) found no conclusive evidence to support a definitive association between
IC and financial performance among Hong Kong companies.
N:\Sam-publications\published articles\journals\final draft\Chu 2011 Empirical Study of the Impact of Intellectual Capital on Business
Performance.doc 11/5/2010 7
Other studies (Chen et al., 2005; Kujansivu, 2005; Shiu, 2006b) have found both human and
physical capital to be positively associated with financial performance. More specifically,
structural capital has been found to be a critical link that enabled IC to be measured at the
organisational level, which means that, for example, if a company has good systems and
procedures, then IC efficiency is likely to be high (Bontis et al., 2000).
2. Research Methods
2.1 Samples and Data Collection
The Hang Seng Index (HSI) is one of the stock market indexes in Hong Kong which indicates
the overall market performance of the Hong Kong Stock Exchange (HKSE). HSI is
commonly regarded as the representative of the state of the Hong Kong economy, and
represents approximately 67.3% of the total market capitalization in Hong Kong between
2005 and 2008 (Hang Seng Indexes, 2008). On a year-to-year basis, the number of HSI
constituent companies varies. The study sample included all HSI constituent companies over
a 4-year period (2005 n = 33, 2006 n = 36, 2007 n = 43, 2008 n = 42). Data were collected
from 154 published annual reports, and are referred to in this study as company-year cases.
Three cases, which obtained either a negative book value or a negative VAIC™, were
considered as problematic and removed from the final sample size (N =151) to avoid the
effect of outliers. Table 2.1 summarizes the distribution of company-year cases according to
business sectors.
Table 2.1 Sample distribution by sectors
Sectors Frequency/company-year %
Commerce and industry 85 56.3
Finance 32 21.2
Properties 22 14.6
Utilities 12 7.9
Total 151* 100
Notes: * company-year after removing three sets of problematic data
2.2 Independent Variables
VAIC™ and its components (HCE, SCE, CEE) were used separately as independent
variables. This is to differentiate the classification of IC into human capital and structural
capital (Muhammad, 2009). Calculation of VAIC™ using accounting-based figures involves
five steps (Pulic, 2000; Chan, 2009a), which has been illustrated in detail by other researchers
N:\Sam-publications\published articles\journals\final draft\Chu 2011 Empirical Study of the Impact of Intellectual Capital on Business
Performance.doc 11/5/2010 8
(Zéghal & Maaloul, 2010; Chan, 2009a; Kamath, 2008). For simplicity, the practical
procedures of calculating VAIC™ is demonstrated in this paper. First of all, the Value Added
(VA) of the company had to be extracted.
VA = OP + EC + D + A
where OP = operating profits; EC = total employee expenses, which is viewed as
investment; D = depreciation; A = amortization. Secondly, the Human Capital Efficiency
(HCE) and Structural Capital Efficiency (SCE) were calculated.
HCE = VA / HC
SCE = ( VA – HC ) / VA
where HC = human capital, measured by total employee expenses. Since IC can only be
operable under the support by financial and physical capital, Capital Employed Efficiency
(CEE) was added to the formula.
CEE = VA / CE
VAIC = HCE + SCE + CEE
where CE = capital employed, which is the book value of tangible assets. Finally, VAIC™,
which acted as an independent variable affecting the traditional financial performance of
companies, was obtained by summing up HCE, SCE and CEE.
2.3 Dependent Variables
Four traditional financial indicators were used as dependent variables, and served as proxy
measures of productivity, profitability, and market valuation. These include market-to-book
value (MB), return on assets (ROA), asset turnover (ATO) and return on equity (ROE) which
have been used in earlier studies (Firer & Williams, 2003; Chan, 2009a).
2.4 Data Analysis
Regression analysis was conducted to investigate the association between IC performance
and business performance, where VAIC™ and its components served as independent
variables, while the MB, ROA, ATO, and ROE were dependent variables. The formulas and
rules for extracting figures from financial reports used in this research are detailed in the
appendices. Firm size (FSIZE) and firm leverage (DEBT) were added to the models as two
control variables (Firer & Williams, 2003; Chan, 2009a), which helped reduce the effect of
unknown variables (Shuttleworth, 2008).
N:\Sam-publications\published articles\journals\final draft\Chu 2011 Empirical Study of the Impact of Intellectual Capital on Business
Performance.doc 11/5/2010 9
2.5 Research Hypotheses
The overarching research question asks: What is the impact of IC on corporate financial
performance in relation to productivity, profitability, and market valuation, of major
companies in Hong Kong? Considering that earlier studies have generated inconclusive
answers to this research question (see Section 1.4), a number of hypotheses were generated to
clarify the evidence.
2.5.1 Association of an aggregate VAIC™ measure with financial performance indicators
The aggregate measure based on the components of VAICTM
represents a total measure of IC.
In the following hypotheses, the association of this aggregate measure with each financial
indicator is examined.
H1a. VAIC™ is positively associated with market valuation as measured by MB
H1b. VAIC™ is positively associated with profitability as measured by ROA.
H1c. VAIC™ is positively associated with productivity as measured by ATO.
H1d. VAIC™ is positively associated with return on equity as measured by ROE.
2.5.2 Association of VAIC™ components with financial performance indicators
The three components of VAICTM
reflect the classification of IC into physical, human, and
structural capital. Earlier studies have shown that the associations of these components with
financial performance indicators are not uniform (Chan, 2009b; Chen, Cheng, & Hwang,
2005). Thus, the following hypotheses were generated:
H2a. HCE is positively associated with market valuation as measured by MB.
H2b. HCE is positively associated with profitability as measured by ROA.
H2c. HCE is positively associated with productivity as measured by ATO.
H2d. HCE is positively associated with return on equity as measured by ROE.
H3a. SCE is positively associated with market valuation as measured by MB.
H3b. SCE is positively associated with profitability as measured by ROA.
H3c. SCE is positively associated with productivity as measured by ATO.
H3d. SCE is positively associated with return on equity as measured by ROE.
H4a. CEE is positively associated with market valuation as measured by MB.
N:\Sam-publications\published articles\journals\final draft\Chu 2011 Empirical Study of the Impact of Intellectual Capital on Business
Performance.doc 11/5/2010 10
H4b. CEE is positively associated with profitability as measured by ROA.
H4c. CEE is positively associated with productivity as measured by ATO.
H4d. CEE is positively associated with return on equity as measured by ROE.
2.6 Regression Models
Eight regression models were used where the first four models investigated the association
between the aggregate VAIC™ measure and the four dependent variables. The last four
models were used to analyze each of the three components of VAIC™ and the dependent
variables. These models are illustrated in the regression equations in Table 2.2.
Table 2.2 Regression models
Model Regression equation
1 MBi = β1VAIC™+β2FSIZE+β3DEBT
2 ROAi = β1VAIC™+β2FSIZE+β3DEBT
3 ATOi = β1VAIC™+β2FSIZE+β3DEBT
4 ROEi = β1VAIC™+β2FSIZE+β3DEBT
5 MBi = β1HCE+β2SCE+β3CEE+β4FSIZE+β5DEBT
6 ROAi = β1HCE+β2SCE+β3CEE+β4FSIZE+β5DEBT
7 ATOi = β1HCE+β2SCE+β3CEE+β4FSIZE+β5DEBT
8 ROEi = β1HCE+β2SCE+β3CEE+β4FSIZE+β5DEBT
3. Findings
Tables 3.1 to 3.8 reveal the correlations between the dependent and independent variables
obtained by conducting the Pearson product-moment correlation analysis. Statistical values
such as standardized coefficients (β) and coefficient of determinations (R-square) are used in
the following discussion to illustrate the predictive capability and explanatory power of the
models.
3.1 The Associations between VAIC™ and the Financial Indicators
The coefficients of determination (R2) of hypotheses H1a to H1d indicated limited
explanatory power for the variances in the dependent variables. Even model 2 (Table 3.2),
which had the highest coefficient of determination (R2=0.121; 12% explained variance), was
unable to meet the threshold of Cohen‟s minimum standard of 14% for large effect size
N:\Sam-publications\published articles\journals\final draft\Chu 2011 Empirical Study of the Impact of Intellectual Capital on Business
Performance.doc 11/5/2010 11
(Grissom & Kim, 2005).
N:\Sam-publications\published articles\journals\final draft\Chu 2011 Empirical Study of the Impact of Intellectual Capital on Business
Performance.doc 11/5/2010 12
Table 3.1: Multiple regression results of Model 1: MBi=β1VAIC™+β2FSIZE+β3DEBT
Standardized
coefficients (β)
t-value p VIF
VAIC™ -0.026 -0.305 0.760 1.112
Firm Size 0.162 1.952 0.053 1.057
Debt 0.110 1.289 0.200 1.121
R2 = 0.045
Note: H1a. VAIC™ is positively associated with market valuation as measured by Market to Book
Value
Table 3.2: Multiple regression results of Model 2: ROAi=β1VAIC™+β2FSIZE+β3DEBT
Standardized
coefficients (β)
t-value p VIF
VAIC™ 0.192 2.355 0.020* 1.112
Firm Size 0.092 1.161 0.248 1.057
Debt -0.232 -2.837 0.005** 1.121
R2 = 0.121
Notes: H1b. VAIC™ is positively associated with profitability as measured by Return on Assets
*statistically significant at p < .05; ** statistically significant at p < .01
Table 3.3: Multiple regression results of Model 3: ATOi=β1VAIC™+β2FSIZE+β3DEBT
Standardized
coefficients (β)
t-value p VIF
VAIC™ -0.173 -2.035 0.044* 1.112
Firm Size -0.028 -0.342 0.733 1.057
Debt -0.151 -1.772 0.079 1.121
R2 = 0.042
Notes: H1c. VAIC™ is positively associated with productivity as measured by Asset Turnover.
*statistically significant at p < .05
N:\Sam-publications\published articles\journals\final draft\Chu 2011 Empirical Study of the Impact of Intellectual Capital on Business
Performance.doc 11/5/2010 13
Table 3.4: Multiple regression results of Model 4: ROE i=β1VAIC™+β2FSIZE+β3DEBT
Standardized
coefficients (β)
t-value p VIF
VAIC™ 0.155 1.862 0.065 1.112
Firm Size -0.269 -3.316 0.001** 1.057
Debt 0.143 1.714 0.089 1.121
R2 = 0.083
Notes: H1d. VAIC™ is positively associated with profitability as measured by Return on Equity
**statistically significant at p < .01
Statistically, VAIC™ obtained the strongest significance level on ROA and ATO (for ROA,
Model 2, p=0.020*; for ATO, Model 3, p=0.044*). However, the coefficients of
determination were not adequate to support the ability of VAIC™ to predict the variance in
ROA and ATO. Viewing R2
in a reverse manner, that is the coefficient of non-determination,
there was a high amount of unexplained variance of the dependent variable by the
independent variables in Model 2 (88%) and Model 3 (96%). As such, the explanatory
powers of Models 2 and 3 were too weak to claim that associations existed, and it was of
little practical effect and importance to the research. Hypotheses H1a, H1b, H1c and H1d
were therefore not substantiated by the findings.
The limited association between VAIC™ and the conventional financial indicators is
consistent with the findings of Chan (2009b) on the HIS constitutent companies from 2001 to
2005. This earlier study showed that there was no strong association between corporate
intellectual ability and the traditional financial performance measures. One possible
explanation suggested by Chan (2009b) is that local companies, when enhancing profitability,
are placing more emphasis on other types of strategic assets than on IC. The findings of this
present study indicate that IC investment, as a means of enhancing business performance,
persists to be weak in Hong Kong.
3.2 The Associations between VAIC™ Components and Financial Indicators
HCE, SCE, and CEE were found to be better predictors of the variance in the financial
indicators relative to the aggregate VAIC™ measure. The findings are summarized in Tables
3.5 to 3.8, showing higher amounts of explained variances.
N:\Sam-publications\published articles\journals\final draft\Chu 2011 Empirical Study of the Impact of Intellectual Capital on Business
Performance.doc 11/5/2010 14
Table 3.5: Multiple regression results of Model 5: MBi=β1HCE+β2SCE+β3CEE+β4FSIZE+β5DEBT
Standardized
coefficients (β)
t-value p VIF
HCE -0.303 -3.665 0.000*** 1.777
SCE 0.272 3.193 0.002** 1.889
CEE 0.716 10.154 0.000*** 1.294
Firm Size 0.092 1.398 0.164 1.121
Debt 0.336 4.772 0.000*** 1.293
R2 = 0.443
Notes: H2a. HCE; H3a. SCE; H4a. CEE is positively associated with market valuation as measured
by MB
**statistically significant at p < .01; ***statistically significant at p < .001
Table 3.6: Multiple regression results of Model 6: ROAi=β1HCE+β2SCE+β3CEE+β4FSIZE+β5DEBT
Standardized
coefficients (β)
t-value p VIF
HCE -0.038 -0.443 0.658 1.777
SCE 0.225 2.527 0.013* 1.889
CEE 0.597 8.110 0.000*** 1.294
Firm Size 0.035 0.515 0.608 1.121
Debt -0.046 -0.622 0.535 1.293
R2 = 0.393
Notes: H2b. HCE; H3b. SCE; H4b. CEE is positively associated with profitability as measured by
ROA
*statistically significant at p < .05; ***statistically significant at p < .001
N:\Sam-publications\published articles\journals\final draft\Chu 2011 Empirical Study of the Impact of Intellectual Capital on Business
Performance.doc 11/5/2010 15
Table 3.7: Multiple regression results of Model 7: ATOi=β1HCE+β2SCE+β3CEE+β4FSIZE+β5DEBT
Standardized
coefficients (β)
t-value p VIF
HCE -0.159 -2.179 0.031* 1.777
SCE -0.248 -3.286 0.001** 1.889
CEE 0.671 10.739 0.000*** 1.294
Firm Size -0.007 -0.129 0.898 1.121
Debt -0.014 -0.220 0.826 1.293
R2 = 0.563
Notes: H2c. HCE; H3c. SCE; H4c. CEE is positively associated with productivity as measured by ATO
*statistically significant at p < .05; **statistically significant at p < .01; ***statistically significant at
p < .001
Table 3.8: Multiple regression results of Model 8: ROEi=β1HCE+β2SCE+β3CEE+β4FSIZE+β5DEBT
Standardized
coefficients (β)
t-value p VIF
HCE -0.237 -2.593 0.010* 1.777
SCE 0.575 6.112 0.000*** 1.889
CEE 0.439 5.641 0.000*** 1.294
Firm Size -0.382 -5.272 0.000*** 1.121
Debt 0.342 4.396 0.000*** 1.293
R2 = 0.320
Notes: H2d. HCE; H3d. SCE; H4d. CEE is positively associated with profitability as measured by
ROE
*statistically significant at p < .05; ***statistically significant at p < .001
Results showed that HCE was a statistically significant moderate predictor for MB with
negative association (Model 5; β=-0.303; p=0.000***). MB may be viewed as an indicator to
show how investors value the sample companies. It seems that investors have long perceived
the expenses spent on employees as a cost, rather than as an investment. This is consistent
with the implication stated by Chan (2009b) that expenditures on human resources has been
consistently perceived as an expense rather than as an investment. The results reveal the
phenomenon that the higher the employee expenses, the lower the market valuation of the
N:\Sam-publications\published articles\journals\final draft\Chu 2011 Empirical Study of the Impact of Intellectual Capital on Business
Performance.doc 11/5/2010 16
company.
As seen in model 7, HCE was a statistically significant predictor for ATO with small,
negative association (Model 7; β=-0.159; p=0.031*), while CEE was a statistically significant
predictor for ATO with moderate, positive association (Model 7; β=0.671; p=0.000***).
These show that when enhancing productivity, local companies may exhibit a tendency to
employ physical and financial assets rather than human assets. In the traditional view of
productivity, given the same amount of input, a greater number of employees may result in
decreasing marginal output. In contrast, from the value creation perspective, human capital
may be looked upon as a depository of knowledge. The pool of knowledge contained in it,
when used effectively, becomes IC for value creation (Pulic, 2008), contributing to the
enhancement of a company‟s overall productivity. This contradiction reveals the gap between
the traditional accounting perspective and the value creation perspective when assessing
human capital. Apart from the ROA, HCE was also found to be able to predict MB, ATO and
ROE at different significance levels, although in negative correlations. Hence, the hypotheses
H2a, H2b, H2c and H2d were not substantiated.
The statistical associations between SCE and financial indicators provided some interesting
insights. The empirical results show that SCE exhibited an influence on MB and ROE as
indicated by the positive association with MB (Model 5; β=0.272; p=0.002**), although the
strength of this association may not be as strong as the other predictor, physical capital, in the
same model. It does, however, indicate that investors appeared to be considering structural
capital an important factor when making investment decisions. This result is further
supported by the finding that SCE was a moderate predictor with very high statistical
significance to ROE (Model 8; β=0.575; p=0.000***), as ROE acts as one of the important
indicators for investors to measure the financial conditions of businesses.
The statistical association found between SCE and ROE is a very interesting finding in this
research. Such a finding may imply that the sample companies surveyed were able to utilize
their structural capital, i.e., strategy, proprietary computer systems, routines and procedures,
to yield higher profits from the shareholders‟ equity. Among the independent variables and
control variables, SCE was found to be the strongest predictor of ROE as evidenced by the
highest beta value in Model 8, more so than that of physical capital (CEE).
N:\Sam-publications\published articles\journals\final draft\Chu 2011 Empirical Study of the Impact of Intellectual Capital on Business
Performance.doc 11/5/2010 17
The results in Model 8 provide the strongest evidence yet to suggest that structural capital
may be playing a more important role in profit generation and hence, shareholders‟ equity, for
companies in Hong Kong when compared with other VAIC™ components. It also illustrates
that the „management‟ of the sample companies have been very much guided by the
deployment of structural capital in achieving profitability, more so than physical capital. This
finding contrasts with that of a prior and similar study, where physical capital efficiency
(CEE) was found to be a better predictor for ROE (Chan, 2009b). Also, it contrasts with
findings in Ting and Lean (2009) that SCE had a negative, though not significant, effect on
ROA. As SCE had a positive and significant effect on MB, ROA and ROE, hypotheses H3a,
H3c and H3d were substantiated.
Overall, and apart from Model 8, CEE was found to be the best predictor for the four
financial measurements when examining the associations of the three VAIC™ components
with MB, ROA, ATO and ROE. This finding is consistent with the traditional accounting
point of view that physical and financial assets are critical when evaluating business
performance, and it also supports Ting and Lean (2009) in that capital employed has been
importantly utilized in generating high value returns. Hypotheses H4a, H4b, H4c and H4d
were supported by the regression results.
The control variables, i.e., firm size and firm leverage, were found to be in association with
business performance. Firm size appears to be a significant predictor for ROE (Model 8;
p=0.000***), while firm leverage is a highly significant predicator for MB (Model 5;
p=0.000***) and ROE (Model 8; p=0.000***). This is consistent with earlier findings by
Chan (2009b) which showed that there is a positive association between firm leverage and
ROE. However, this suggests a different conclusion from that of Firer and Williams (2003),
who found that firm size and leverage contributed very little to the explanatory power of the
linear multiple regression results, and were of statistical significance in only isolated cases. It
is also inconsistent with the findings of Kamath (2008) that there was no significant
association between the size and leverage of firms with their market valuation.
Moreover, the positive correlation between firm leverage and ROE shows that companies
with high gearing ratio tend to have higher profitability. As suggested by Chan (2009b), such
a finding may imply that Hong Kong listed companies are maintaining a high level of
N:\Sam-publications\published articles\journals\final draft\Chu 2011 Empirical Study of the Impact of Intellectual Capital on Business
Performance.doc 11/5/2010 18
investment, possibly with the assistance of borrowing or leverage, to enhance ROE for
shareholders.
4. Conclusion and Further Studies
The research results provide new insights for IC practitioners and business stakeholders into
the utilization of IC by businesses in Hong Kong. The statistical associations found between
structural capital and financial indicators may be the clearest evidence yet to show that
structural capital, one of the key components of IC, has an impact on business performance in
the companies surveyed in Hong Kong. The utilization and effective deployment of structural
capital is becoming an important tool for the managers of these companies to achieve
profitability. Some interesting research questions follow: “What is the major structural capital
in local companies that can affect corporate profitability the most?”; “Would it be
technologies or routines and procedures?” It also remains to be clarified whether or not
business companies are aware of the importance of structural capital to their financial
performance. Further studies may also examine how local businesses may cultivate their
structural capital in order to ensure a higher return. There might be potential differences in
structural capital utilization in different industries or sectors, which may be influenced by
company size or information technology. Knowledge management practices may further
improve structural capital usage, but this has yet to be substantiated by empirical findings. As
this research focused on local companies, questions such as: “Does the higher levels of usage
of structural capital apply only to Hong Kong?”, and “How does Hong Kong compare with
her neighboring countries?” are also worth investigating. We believe that there remains a vast
body of potential research, the findings of which would be of utmost importance and interest
not only to scholars and IC practitioners, but also to business management, investors and
other stakeholders as well. A coordinated research effort in IC in Hong Kong may help
answer at least some of these questions.
N:\Sam-publications\published articles\journals\final draft\Chu 2011 Empirical Study of the Impact of Intellectual Capital on Business
Performance.doc 11/5/2010 19
References
Appuhami, B.A.R. (2007). The Impact of Intellectual Capital on Investors‟ Capital Gains on
Shares: An Empirical Investigation of Thai Banking, Finance & Insurance Sector.
International Management Review. Vol 3, No. 2, pp 14-25.
Bontis, N. (2004). "National Intellectual Capital Index: A United Nations initiative for the
Arab region", Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol 5, No. 1, pp 13-39.
Bontis, N., Keow, W.C.C. and Richardson, S. (2000). "Intellectual capital and business
performance in Malaysian industries", Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol 1, No. 1, pp 85-
100.
Canibano, L., García-Ayuso, M. and Sánchez, P. (2000). "Accounting For Intangibles: A
Literature Review". Journal of Accounting Literature, Vol 19, pp 102-130
Chan, K.H. (2009a). "Impact of intellectual capital on organisational performance :An
empirical study of companies in the Hang Seng Index (Part 1) ", The Learning Organization,
Vol 16, No. 1, pp 4-21.
Chan, K.H. (2009b). "Impact of intellectual capital on organisational performance :An
empirical study of companies in the Hang Seng Index (Part 2) ", The Learning Organization,
Vol 16, No. 1, pp 22-39.
Chen, M.C., Cheng, S.J., and Hwang, Y. (2005). “An empirical investigation of the
relationship between intellectual capital and firms‟ market value and financial performance”,
Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol 6, No. 2, pp 159-76.
Edvinsson, L. (1997). "Developing capital at Skandia", Long Range Planning, Vol 30, No. 3,
pp 366-373.
Edvinsson, L. and Malone, M. (1997). Intellectual Capital: Realizing Your Company's True
Value by Finding its Hidden Brainpower, Harper Collins, New York.
Edvinsson, L. and Sullivan, P. (1996). "Developing a model for managing intellectual capital",
European Management Journal, Vol 14, No. 4, pp 356-364.
Firer, S. and Williams, S. M. (2003). “Intellectual capital and traditional measures of
corporate performance,” Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol 4, No. 3, pp 348-360.
Goh, P.C. (2005). "Intellectual Capital Performance of the Commercial Banks in Malaysia",
Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol 6, No. 3, pp 385-396.
Grissom, R.J. and Kim, J.J. (2005). Effect sizes for research: A broad practical approach,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, N.J.
N:\Sam-publications\published articles\journals\final draft\Chu 2011 Empirical Study of the Impact of Intellectual Capital on Business
Performance.doc 11/5/2010 20
Hang Seng Indexes. (2008). Press Releases, [online], http://www.hsi.com.hk/HSI-Net/HSI-Net.
Kamath, G. B. (2007). "The intellectual capital performance of Indian banking sector",
Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol 8, No. 1, pp 96-123.
Kamath, G. B. (2008). "Intellectual Capital and Corporate Performance in Indian
Pharmaceutical Industry", Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol 9, No. 4, pp 684-704.
Lynn, B. (1998). "Intellectual Capital", CMA Magazine, Vol 72, No. 1, pp 10-15.
Mavridis, D.M. (2004). "The intellectual capital performance of the Japanes banking sector",
Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol 5, No. 1, pp 92-115.
Mavridis, D.M. (2005). "Intellectual capital performance determinants and globalization
status of Greek listed firms", Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol 6, No. 1, pp 127-140.
Mohiuddin, M., Najibullah, S. and Shahid, A.I. (2006). "An Exploratory Study on Intellectual
Capital Performance of the Commercial Banks in Bangladesh", The Cost and Management,
Vol 34, No. 6, pp 40-54.
Muhammad, N.M.N. (2009). "Intellectual Capital Efficiency and Firm's Performance: Study
on Malaysian Financial Sectors", International Journal of Economics and Finance, Vol 1, No.
2, pp 206-212.
Pulic, A. (1998). "Measuring the performance of intellectual potential in knowledge
economy", in 2nd World Congress on Measuring and Managing Intellectual Capital,
McMaster University, Hamilton.
Pulic, A. (2000). "VAIC - an accounting tool for IC management", International Journal of
Technology Management, Vol 20, No. 5-8, pp 702-714.
Pulic, A. (2008). "The principles of intellectual capital efficiency – a brief description", in
Inspired by Knowledge in Organisations: Essays in Honor of Professor Karl-Erik Sveiby on
his 60th Birthday 29th June 2008.
Roos, G. and Roos, J. (1997). "Measuring Your Company's Intellectual Performance", Long
Range Planning, Vol 30, No. 3, pp 413-426.
Salleh, A.L. and Selamat, F. (2007). "Intellectual Capital Management in Malaysian Public
Listed Companies", International Review of Business Research Paper, Vol 3, No. 1, pp 266-
278.
Shiu, H.J. (2006). "The Application of the Value Added Intellectual Coefficient to Measure
Corporate Performance: Evidence from Technological Firms", International Journal of
Management, Vol 23, No. 2, pp 356-365.
Shuttleworth, M. (2008). Controlled Variables, [online], http://www.experiment-
N:\Sam-publications\published articles\journals\final draft\Chu 2011 Empirical Study of the Impact of Intellectual Capital on Business
Performance.doc 11/5/2010 21
resources.com/controlled-variables.html.
Stewart, T.A. (1997). Intellectual capital: The new wealth of organizations, Doubleday/
Currency, New York.
Sveiby, K. (1997). The New Organizational Wealth: Managing and Measuring Knowledge
Based Assets, Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco.
Sveiby, K.E. (2001). Measuring Competence, [online],
http://www.sveiby.com/articles/MeasureCompetence.html.
Tan, H.P., Plowman, D. and Hancock, P. (2007). "Intellectual capital and financial returns of
companies", Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol 8, No. 1, pp 76-95.
Ting, W.K.I. and Lean, H.H. (2009). "Intellectual capital performance of financial institutions
in Malaysia", Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol 10, No. 4, pp 588-599.
Yalama, A. and Coskun, M. (2007). "Intellectual capital performance of quoted banks on the
Istanbul stock exchange market", Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol 8, No. 2, pp 256-271.
Young, C.S., Su, H.Y., Fang, S.C., and Fang, S.R. (2009). "Cross-country comparison of
intellectual capital performance of commercial banks in Asian economies", The Services
Industries Journal, Vol 29, No. 11, pp 1565-1579.
Venkatraman, N. and Ramanujam, V. (1986). “Measurement of business performance in
strategy research: A comparison of approaches.” The Academy of Management Review, Vol
11, No. 4, pp 801-814.
Zéghal, D. and Maaloul, A. (2010). "Analysing value added as an indicator of intellectual
capital and its consequences on company performance", Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol
11, No. 1, pp 39-60.
N:\Sam-publications\published articles\journals\final draft\Chu 2011 Empirical Study of the Impact of Intellectual Capital on Business
Performance.doc 11/5/2010 22
Appendix 1
VAIC™ Calculation
VA = OP + EC + D + A
HCE = VA / HC
SCE = ( VA – HC ) / VA
CEE = VA / CE
VAIC = HCE + SCE + CEE
Note: CE = Total Assets – Intangible Assets
Financial Indicators Calculation
MB = Market Capitalization / Shareholders‟ Equity
ROA = Operating Profit / Total Assets
ATO = Total Revenue / Total Assets
ROE = Net Income / Shareholders‟ Equity
FSIZE = log (Market Capitalization)
DEBT = Total Debt / Total Assets
Notes: Shareholders’ equity refers to total equity in B/S
Market Capitalization = Market Price* # of shares
Appendix 2
Currency Conversion
USD against HKD: 1 USD = 7.8 HKD
RMB against HKD: Year Average exchange rate
2008 0.88 RMB=1 HKD
2007 0.94 RMB=1 HKD
2006 1 RMB=1 HKD
2005 1.04 RMB=1 HKD
Source: People‟s Bank of China
N:\Sam-publications\published articles\journals\final draft\Chu 2011 Empirical Study of the Impact of Intellectual Capital on Business
Performance.doc 11/5/2010 23
Rules of extracting figures from financial reports
Operating Profit (OP)
Obtained from “Consolidated Income Statement” or “Consolidated P & L”
Extracted from the field of “Operating profit”
If OP is not clearly specified in the income statement, then used “profit before tax and
other interests” as the rule, excluding finance related charges and income, share of P&L
from jointly controlled companies and associated companies and other non-operational
income and charges
Employee Costs
Total spending on employees
Including salaries, directors‟ remuneration, retirement benefits and other related
expenses
Depreciation and Amortization (D and A)
Sum of the “deprecation” or “amortization” of assets
Market Price
Closing price on the last trading day of the year
Extracted from Yahoo! Finance
Number of shares
Number of shares which were issued and fully paid
Extracted from the “Share Capital” under “notes to the accounts”
Net income
“Profit attributable to shareholders” in the “Consolidated Income Statement”
Total Revenue
“Turnover” or “Revenue” specified in the “Consolidated Income Statement”
N:\Sam-publications\published articles\journals\final draft\Chu 2011 Empirical Study of the Impact of Intellectual Capital on Business
Performance.doc 11/5/2010 24
Intangible Assets
Figure of Intangible Assets extracted based on the “Hong Kong Accounting Standard
38”
Including license, goodwill, leasehold land and land use right, brand name and other
rights
http://app1.hkicpa.org.hk/ebook/HKSA_Members_Handbook_Master/volumeII/hkas38.pdf
Total Equity
“Total Equity” in “Consolidated Balance Sheet”
Current, Non-current Assets and Liabilities
All extracted from the “Consolidated Balance Sheet”