Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Intellectual Capital

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2. Hypo<strong>the</strong>sis development Deborah Branswijck and Patricia Everaert Previous studies on IC disclosure in <strong>the</strong> prospectus used a content analysis to determine whe<strong>the</strong>r stakeholder groups, with an interest in controlling certain strategic aspects <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> organization, will be informed voluntarily on <strong>the</strong> company’s IC during <strong>the</strong> initial public <strong>of</strong>fering (IPO) (Bukh et al., 2004 ; Singh and Van der Zahn, 2008). During an IPO <strong>the</strong> amount <strong>of</strong> stakeholders <strong>of</strong> a company increases. The stakeholder <strong>the</strong>ory suggests that an organization’s management is expected to undertake activities deemed important by <strong>the</strong>ir stakeholders. According to <strong>the</strong> latter, a company will voluntarily disclose information about its intellectual performance above mandatory requirements in order to meet <strong>the</strong>se expectations (Deegan, 2000). Moreover, <strong>the</strong> traditional accounting models are unable to reflect <strong>the</strong> new ways <strong>of</strong> creating value. The most intuitive measurement <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> value <strong>of</strong> IC is <strong>the</strong> difference between <strong>the</strong> net book value and <strong>the</strong> market value <strong>of</strong> a company (Holland, 2001). Firms with a great difference between <strong>the</strong>se two measures have a high level <strong>of</strong> IC. For some companies this difference may come from a brand name for o<strong>the</strong>rs it may come from know-how or patents. The value <strong>of</strong> those intangible assets could represent more than 60 % <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> business assets (Lev, 2001) and <strong>the</strong>refore <strong>the</strong> necessity to voluntarily report about <strong>the</strong>se value creation indicators increases. Since reporting on IC is voluntary, firms will only disclose this information if <strong>the</strong>re are advantages related to. These advantages are, according to Vergauwen and van Alem (2005) and Depoers (2000), among o<strong>the</strong>rs related to decreasing information asymmetry between <strong>the</strong> company and <strong>the</strong> users <strong>of</strong> financial statements, lower borrowing costs due to a better estimation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> risk associated with <strong>the</strong> company and a higher value relevance <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> financial statements. Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, economic <strong>the</strong>ory suggests that a commitment by a firm to an increased level <strong>of</strong> disclosure should lower <strong>the</strong> information asymmetry component <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> firm’s cost <strong>of</strong> capital. Leuz and Verrecchia (2000) showed that substantially increased levels <strong>of</strong> disclosure caused several economic benefits. Based on a sample <strong>of</strong> German companies, <strong>the</strong>y found that an international reporting strategy (which assumes a commitment towards an increased level <strong>of</strong> disclosure) is associated with lower bid-ask spreads and higher share turnover. Due <strong>the</strong> nature <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> economic benefits accompanied with it, firms that have undertaken an IPO will continue to disclose more. Therefore, it could be assumed that IC disclosure commitment starts in <strong>the</strong> prospectus and will be reflected in <strong>the</strong> subsequent annual report. This results in <strong>the</strong> following hypo<strong>the</strong>sis H1: A more than average level <strong>of</strong> IC disclosure in <strong>the</strong> prospectus results in a more than average level <strong>of</strong> IC disclosure in <strong>the</strong> subsequent annual report due to disclosure commitment. Previous research on financial reporting (Cooke and Wallace, 1990) revealed that <strong>the</strong> environment in which <strong>the</strong> company operates shapes financial reporting practices. According to this legitimacy <strong>the</strong>ory, organizations continually try to operate within <strong>the</strong> boundaries and norms <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir societies. From this perspective, a company would voluntarily report on activities if <strong>the</strong> management perceived that this was expected by society. These expectations are not fixed but change over time. Consequently, <strong>the</strong> company needs to be responsive to <strong>the</strong> environment in which it operates (Deegan, 2000). It is expected that firms are more likely to report on <strong>the</strong>ir IC if <strong>the</strong>y find <strong>the</strong>mselves unable to legitimize <strong>the</strong>ir status on <strong>the</strong> basis <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> traditionally recognized fixed assets as symbols <strong>of</strong> corporate success. Since <strong>the</strong> recent economic disturbance changed <strong>the</strong> environment in which companies operate, <strong>the</strong> following hypo<strong>the</strong>ses can be formulated: H2a: The economic disturbance has a positive influence on <strong>the</strong> voluntary reporting <strong>of</strong> IC in <strong>the</strong> IPO prospectus. H2b: The economic disturbance has a positive influence on <strong>the</strong> voluntary reporting <strong>of</strong> IC in <strong>the</strong> annual report. Daily et al. (2003) suggested that <strong>the</strong> IPO prospectus is <strong>of</strong>ten more precise than o<strong>the</strong>r reporting media because companies are liable for any misleading or inaccurate information. It can be observed that <strong>the</strong> prospectus usually contains more information about future expectations regarding market developments and earnings, strategic direction, management, board composition, etc., compared to <strong>the</strong> annual report. At <strong>the</strong> time <strong>of</strong> admission for listing on <strong>the</strong> stock exchange <strong>the</strong> company has to convince future shareholders to invest capital. Ma<strong>the</strong>r et al. (2000) found that <strong>the</strong> firms’ management has an incentive to present <strong>the</strong> company in <strong>the</strong> best possible light in order to maximize <strong>the</strong> proceeds <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> share issue. Although this could lead to earnings management, <strong>the</strong> IPO prospectus provides insights into which types <strong>of</strong> information are selected by a company for representing itself in relation to 502
Deborah Branswijck and Patricia Everaert investors and analysts. In o<strong>the</strong>r words, it could be argued that a company sees <strong>the</strong> prospectus as a publicity brochure in which it reports in detail about its achievements, skills and growth potential. All <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se items are related to <strong>the</strong> intellectual capital <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> company. Compared to <strong>the</strong> IPO prospectus, <strong>the</strong> annual report has not only investors as its readers but it also conveys information to employees, potential employees, customers, NGOs and o<strong>the</strong>r stakeholders. Due to this enlarged group <strong>of</strong> readers, it is argued that some differences occur in <strong>the</strong> extent <strong>of</strong> disclosure in both company documents. As to <strong>the</strong> annual report, <strong>the</strong> prospectus can be assumed to provide additional disclosure on <strong>the</strong> company’s long term strategy and risks (Cumby and Conrad, 2001). This results in <strong>the</strong> following hypo<strong>the</strong>sis: H3: Companies disclose in general more IC information in <strong>the</strong> prospectus than in <strong>the</strong> annual report. 3. Methodology 3.1 Data collection Prior literature tends to define IC as non-monetary assets without physical substance, such as innovation, knowledge, research and development, employee training or customer satisfaction, that have an impact on <strong>the</strong> firm’s value (Lev and Zambon, 2003). Based on this definition, IC can be divided into structural capital, organizational capital and relational capital. These subdivisions are also found in <strong>the</strong> disclosure index <strong>of</strong> Bukh et al. (2004). Based on <strong>the</strong> index <strong>of</strong> Bukh et al. (2004), 74 companies in Belgium and The Ne<strong>the</strong>rlands between 2005 and 2009 were coded. The index consists <strong>of</strong> 86 elements categorized into six subgroups namely ‘Employees’, ‘Customers’, ‘Information Technology’, ‘Research and Development’, ‘Processes’ and ‘Strategy’. For <strong>the</strong> subgroup ‘Strategy’, three items were added namely ‘Competitor Names’, ‘Suppliers’ and ‘Business Acquisitions’. Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, <strong>the</strong> subgroup ‘Customers’ is extended with <strong>the</strong> items ‘Client Name’, ‘Customer Satisfaction’ and ‘Customer Knowledge’. Lastly, <strong>the</strong> items ‘Insurance’, ‘Key Employees’, ‘Value Added on Employees’, ‘Employee Attitude’, ‘Employee Communicative Activities’ and ‘Expert Teams’ were added to <strong>the</strong> subgroup ‘Employees’. These adaptations were based on <strong>the</strong> differences in indexes used in Bontis (2002), Vergauwen and van Alem (2005) and Beattie and Thomson (2007). Not only <strong>the</strong> presence or absence <strong>of</strong> information pertaining to each IC item for a particular company was documented, but also <strong>the</strong> difference between qualitative and quantitative information was taken into account. On <strong>the</strong> one hand, Bozzolan et al. (2003) introduced a weighting scheme for <strong>the</strong>ir IC disclosure index by counting qualitative disclosures as 1 and quantitative disclosures as 2. The reason lies in <strong>the</strong> fact that companies are more likely to be accurate in quantitative disclosure. Guthrie and Petty (2000), on <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, highlighted <strong>the</strong> difficulty in quantifying IC since it is in many instances a qualitative item. For this research <strong>the</strong> presence <strong>of</strong> a certain item is coded as 1 if <strong>the</strong> item is discussed in general, qualitative information specifically described on <strong>the</strong> selected item is coded as 2 and quantitative information as 3. The total score on <strong>the</strong> IC index is calculated as follows: SCORE = ∑ di where di expresses itemi with value 1 if <strong>the</strong> itemi contains general information, 2 if <strong>the</strong> itemi contains qualitative information and 3 if itemi contains quantitative information. This index is used to apply a content analysis. The method <strong>of</strong> a content analysis is a widely used method to quantify <strong>the</strong> amount <strong>of</strong> disclosure in company reports (Beattie and Thomson, 2007) A second researcher independently confirmed <strong>the</strong> coding <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> first researcher in order to maintain consistency in <strong>the</strong> coding decisions. The prospectus as well as <strong>the</strong> annual report was analyzed manually for IC information. The annual report regularly contains both mandatory and voluntary information such as <strong>the</strong> financial statement (balance sheet, income statement, cashflow statement, notes and auditor’s report), mission statement, chairman’s report and corporate governance. Since <strong>the</strong>re exists no accounting regulation on IC, corporate managers might choose to include IC items that are not reported in <strong>the</strong> financial statements but in o<strong>the</strong>r sections <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> annual report in order to stress <strong>the</strong> importance to <strong>the</strong> reader. Therefore, every single company report is individually scanned for <strong>the</strong> list <strong>of</strong> IC-related terms <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> index. Since not all corporate documents were available, <strong>the</strong> total sample resulted in 65 company prospectuses and 41 annual reports and financial statements. Due to <strong>the</strong>ir specific reporting requirements, we decided not to include <strong>the</strong> banking industry. 503
Page 1 and 2:
Proceedings <stron
Page 3 and 4:
Contents Paper Title Author(s) Page
Page 5 and 6:
Paper Title Author(s) Page No. Hier
Page 7 and 8:
Preface These proceedings represent
Page 9 and 10:
educating through ‘hands on’ co
Page 11 and 12:
Ibrahim Elbeltagi is a Senior lectu
Page 13 and 14:
Theodora Ngosi has a PhD in Compute
Page 15:
José Vale is an invited assistant
Page 19 and 20:
Social Knowledge: Are you Ready? 1
Page 21 and 22:
John Girard don’t know.” (Benne
Page 23 and 24:
John Girard The real question becom
Page 25 and 26:
John Girard our belief that many le
Page 27 and 28:
John Girard organizations to gain k
Page 29 and 30:
Intellectual Capital Accounting - H
Page 31:
Academic Research Papers 15
Page 34 and 35:
Khodayar Abili and Mahyar Abili The
Page 36 and 37:
Khodayar Abili and Mahyar Abili Nah
Page 38 and 39:
Khodayar Abili and Mahyar Abili Tim
Page 40 and 41:
Knowledge Transfer in Romanian Univ
Page 42 and 43:
Simona Agoston et al. Table 1: Know
Page 44 and 45:
Simona Agoston et al. homoscedastic
Page 46 and 47:
Simona Agoston et al. included in <
Page 48 and 49:
A Modeling Approach to Intellectual
Page 50 and 51:
Eckhard Ammann (referring to <stron
Page 52 and 53:
Eckhard Ammann Figure 2: The IC spa
Page 54 and 55:
Eckhard Ammann section 2. They are
Page 56 and 57:
Eckhard Ammann From an overall pers
Page 58 and 59:
Sorin Anagnoste and Gabriela Dumitr
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Gabriela Atanasiu and Florin Leon T
Page 72 and 73:
Gabriela Atanasiu and Florin Leon
Page 74 and 75:
Gabriela Atanasiu and Florin Leon B
Page 76 and 77:
Gabriela Atanasiu and Florin Leon a
Page 78 and 79:
Developing and Implementing Strateg
Page 80 and 81:
2. Technology, faculty, and staff B
Page 82 and 83:
Learning programs Individual poten
Page 84 and 85:
Bob Barrett facts with the<
Page 86 and 87:
Intellectual Capital Dynamics withi
Page 88 and 89:
Ruxandra Bejinaru and Stefan Iordac
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Education and Training Practice Str
Page 96 and 97:
Andrea Bencsik et al. We wanted to
Page 98 and 99:
Andrea Bencsik et al. In this sampl
Page 100 and 101:
Table 4: Types of
Page 102 and 103:
References Andrea Bencsik et al. An
Page 104 and 105:
Ayşen Berberoğlu and Emine Ünar
Page 106 and 107:
Ayşen Berberoğlu and Emine Ünar
Page 108 and 109:
Table 7: Descriptive statistics Ay
Page 110 and 111:
Knowledge Dynamics Modeling Using A
Page 112 and 113:
Constantin Bratianu et al. will hav
Page 114 and 115:
Constantin Bratianu et al. 5. a) Gi
Page 116 and 117:
Constantin Bratianu et al. 5. Data
Page 118 and 119:
Constantin Bratianu et al. Nissen,
Page 120 and 121:
2. Technology and infrastructure Sh
Page 122 and 123:
Sheryl Buckley and Apostolos Gianna
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Donley Carrington and Mike Tayles t
Page 132 and 133:
Donley Carrington and Mike Tayles f
Page 134 and 135:
Donley Carrington and Mike Tayles l
Page 136 and 137:
Donley Carrington and Mike Tayles i
Page 138 and 139:
Donley Carrington and Mike Tayles G
Page 140 and 141:
John Dumay and Jim Rooney on a more
Page 142 and 143:
John Dumay and Jim Rooney Taking <s
Page 144 and 145:
John Dumay and Jim Rooney “For ex
Page 146 and 147:
John Dumay and Jim Rooney Mouritsen
Page 148 and 149:
Marziye Ehrami et al. 1. Creation
Page 150 and 151:
Marziye Ehrami et al. Note: In 2005
Page 152 and 153:
Earnings Quality and Othe</
Page 154 and 155:
Magdi El-Bannany resource-based per
Page 156 and 157:
Magdi El-Bannany Based on this argu
Page 158 and 159:
Magdi El-Bannany Table 2: Descripti
Page 160 and 161:
Magdi El-Bannany variable equal to
Page 162 and 163:
Magdi El-Bannany Edvinsson, L. & Ma
Page 164 and 165:
Ahmed Elsetouhi and Ibrahim Elbelta
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Albrecht Fritzsche and Rebecca Geig
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Table 4: Applicability of</
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
S&P 500 Market Cap ($ billions) 14,
Page 184 and 185:
Tatiana Garanina and Yana Pavlova T
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Tatiana Garanina and Yana Pavlova I
Page 192 and 193:
Impact of Investme
Page 194 and 195:
Lidia García-Zambrano et al. 2003;
Page 196 and 197:
Lidia García-Zambrano et al. 4.2 P
Page 198 and 199:
Table 7: Goodness of</stron
Page 200 and 201:
Lidia García-Zambrano et al. reaso
Page 202 and 203:
Lidia García-Zambrano et al. Rodri
Page 204 and 205:
Víctor Raúl López Ruiz et al. co
Page 206 and 207:
Víctor Raúl López Ruiz et al. NI
Page 208 and 209:
EI c k i 1 w PC i ic Víctor Raúl
Page 210 and 211:
Víctor Raúl López Ruiz et al. Ta
Page 212 and 213:
Víctor Raúl López Ruiz et al. Co
Page 214 and 215:
Víctor Raúl López Ruiz et al. At
Page 216 and 217:
Maria de Lourdes Machado and Odíli
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Intellectual Capital and Corporate
Page 224 and 225:
Agnes Maciocha when objects in a da
Page 226 and 227:
Agnes Maciocha 4. Presentation <str
Page 228 and 229:
Agnes Maciocha while in the
Page 230 and 231:
Agnes Maciocha Choong K., “Intell
Page 232 and 233:
The Influence of H
Page 234 and 235:
Anca Mândruleanu From the<
Page 236 and 237:
Anca Mândruleanu In Table 2, <stro
Page 238 and 239:
Eliciting Tacit Knowledge From a Do
Page 240 and 241:
Peter Marshall and Damian Gordon MM
Page 242 and 243:
Peter Marshall and Damian Gordon re
Page 244 and 245:
Peter Marshall and Damian Gordon ar
Page 246 and 247:
Peter Marshall and Damian Gordon Th
Page 248 and 249:
Maurizio Massaro et al. crucial fac
Page 250 and 251:
Maurizio Massaro et al. exclusive (
Page 252 and 253:
Maurizio Massaro et al. autonomy <s
Page 254 and 255:
Maurizio Massaro et al. Chennal (20
Page 256 and 257:
Intellectual Capital Management: Ca
Page 258 and 259:
Florinda Matos et al. These models
Page 260 and 261:
Complaints System dos clients New
Page 262 and 263:
Florinda Matos et al. Finally, <str
Page 264 and 265:
Florinda Matos et al. The training
Page 266 and 267:
Florinda Matos et al. 47. Opinion
Page 268 and 269:
Florinda Matos et al. In th
Page 270 and 271:
Florinda Matos et al. The Quadrant
Page 272 and 273:
Florinda Matos et al. Integrated te
Page 274 and 275:
Florinda Matos et al. The networks
Page 276 and 277:
Knowledge Management for Knowledge
Page 278 and 279:
3. Our research Ludmila Mládková
Page 280 and 281:
Ludmila Mládková organizational s
Page 282 and 283:
Ludmila Mládková mentioned only b
Page 284 and 285:
Applying the VAIC
Page 286 and 287:
Maria Molodchik and Anna Bykova pro
Page 288 and 289:
Maria Molodchik and Anna Bykova 2.
Page 290 and 291:
Maria Molodchik and Anna Bykova Let
Page 292 and 293:
Maria Molodchik and Anna Bykova The
Page 294 and 295:
Perspectives on the</strong
Page 296 and 297:
Maria Cristina Morariu as we consid
Page 298 and 299:
Maria Cristina Morariu Tobin’s q
Page 300 and 301:
Maria Cristina Morariu for determin
Page 302 and 303:
The Structural Model of</st
Page 304 and 305:
Fattah Nazem Ackerley (2006) reveal
Page 306 and 307:
Fattah Nazem The research instrumen
Page 308 and 309:
Fattah Nazem intellectual capital m
Page 310 and 311:
Fattah Nazem Johnson, M.J. (1986) T
Page 312 and 313:
Andrei Stefan Nestian organization.
Page 314 and 315:
Andrei Stefan Nestian Chaordic syst
Page 316 and 317:
Andrei Stefan Nestian environment,
Page 318 and 319:
Increasing Knowledge Management Mat
Page 320 and 321:
Theodora Ngosi et al. 2.2 Dominatin
Page 322 and 323:
Theodora Ngosi et al. Figure 1: Del
Page 324 and 325:
Theodora Ngosi et al. IT systems, a
Page 326 and 327:
5. Discussion and summary Theodora
Page 328 and 329:
Theodora Ngosi et al. Weill, P., an
Page 330 and 331:
Bongani Ngwenya late adopters respo
Page 332 and 333:
Bongani Ngwenya This paper extends
Page 334 and 335:
Bongani Ngwenya argument, t
Page 336 and 337:
Bongani Ngwenya DiMaggio, P. J., an
Page 338 and 339:
The Quality of Kno
Page 340 and 341:
5.2 5 4.8 4.6 4.4 4.2 4 3.8 Compete
Page 342 and 343:
Corina Pelau et al. In order to imp
Page 344 and 345:
Hierarchy and Tacit Knowledge in <s
Page 346 and 347:
Ulrica Pettersson and James Nyce in
Page 348 and 349:
Ulrica Pettersson and James Nyce mi
Page 350 and 351:
Katja Pook and Campbell Warden time
Page 352 and 353:
Katja Pook and Campbell Warden futu
Page 354 and 355:
5. Commonalities of</strong
Page 356 and 357:
Katja Pook and Campbell Warden <str
Page 358 and 359:
Katja Pook and Campbell Warden Lazl
Page 360 and 361:
Nicolae Al. Pop et al. satisfaction
Page 362 and 363:
Nicolae Al. Pop et al. the<
Page 364 and 365:
Nicolae Al. Pop et al. satisfaction
Page 366 and 367:
Knowledge Cities: A Portuguese Case
Page 368 and 369:
Katia Rodrigues and Eduardo Tomé
Page 370 and 371:
3. The empirical study 3.1 Methodol
Page 372 and 373:
Table 3: Smart cities - application
Page 374 and 375:
4.3 Suggestions to future work Kati
Page 376 and 377:
Anna Romiti and Daria Sarti 2. Orga
Page 378 and 379:
Anna Romiti and Daria Sarti based o
Page 380 and 381:
Anna Romiti and Daria Sarti Governa
Page 382 and 383:
Anna Romiti and Daria Sarti Therefo
Page 384 and 385:
Anna Romiti and Daria Sarti Valkoka
Page 386 and 387:
Kent Rondeau and Terry Wagar planne
Page 388 and 389:
2.1 Study measures Kent Rondeau and
Page 390 and 391:
Kent Rondeau and Terry Wagar contri
Page 392 and 393:
Kent Rondeau and Terry Wagar Our re
Page 394 and 395:
Intellectual Capital and a Firm’s
Page 396 and 397:
Figure 1: Hypothes
Page 398 and 399:
Helena Santos-Rodrigues et al. Norm
Page 400 and 401:
Helena Santos-Rodrigues et al. To s
Page 402 and 403:
Helena Santos-Rodrigues et al. Our
Page 404 and 405:
Factors Influencing the</st
Page 406 and 407:
Thanaletchumi Sathasivam et al. 2.3
Page 408 and 409:
Thanaletchumi Sathasivam et al. The
Page 410 and 411:
Thanaletchumi Sathasivam et al. gro
Page 412 and 413:
Thanaletchumi Sathasivam et al. The
Page 414 and 415:
Thanaletchumi Sathasivam et al. 11.
Page 416 and 417:
Enhancing IC Formation by Evoking H
Page 418 and 419:
Klaus Bruno Schebesch to portray <s
Page 420 and 421:
Klaus Bruno Schebesch 4. Leaning an
Page 422 and 423:
Klaus Bruno Schebesch We argue in f
Page 424 and 425:
Klaus Bruno Schebesch come
Page 426 and 427:
In Search of key F
Page 428 and 429:
Karen Smits et al. contribution, wi
Page 430 and 431:
Karen Smits et al. Table 1: Correla
Page 432 and 433:
Karen Smits et al. staff feel that
Page 434 and 435:
Marta-Christina Suciu et al. This p
Page 436 and 437:
Marta-Christina Suciu et al. <stron
Page 438 and 439:
Marta-Christina Suciu et al. The qu
Page 440 and 441:
Marta-Christina Suciu et al. This t
Page 442 and 443:
Information and Communication Techn
Page 444 and 445:
Jukka Surakka et al. The participan
Page 446 and 447:
Jukka Surakka et al. people. Commun
Page 448 and 449:
Personal Knowledge Management (PKM)
Page 450 and 451:
Marzena Świgoń provide th
Page 452 and 453:
Marzena Świgoń (number and type <
Page 454 and 455:
Marzena Świgoń measure self-perce
Page 456 and 457:
Eduardo Tomé what we consider to b
Page 458 and 459:
Eduardo Tomé IC. The intervention
Page 460 and 461:
Eduardo Tomé In the</stro
Page 462 and 463:
Eduardo Tomé to stress that <stron
Page 464 and 465:
Eleni Magdalini Vasileiadou et al.
Page 466 and 467:
Eleni Magdalini Vasileiadou et al.
Page 468 and 469: Eleni Magdalini Vasileiadou et al.
Page 478 and 479: José María Viedma Marti products
Page 480 and 481: Sustainable competitive advantage T
Page 482 and 483: José María Viedma Marti knowledge
Page 484 and 485: José María Viedma Marti pr<strong
Page 486 and 487: José María Viedma Marti All <stro
Page 488 and 489: ICBS I CBS José María Viedma Mart
Page 490 and 491: José María Viedma Marti Sullivan,
Page 492 and 493: 2. Balanced scorecard framework Ang
Page 494 and 495: Angelos Vouldis and Angelica Kokkin
Page 496 and 497: Unclear benefits of</strong
Page 498 and 499: Angelos Vouldis and Angelica Kokkin
Page 500 and 501: 9. Discussion and conclusions Angel
Page 502 and 503: The Global Position of</str
Page 504 and 505: Piotr Wisniewski safeguarding IC vi
Page 506 and 507: Piotr Wisniewski Figure 2: Ten larg
Page 508 and 509: Piotr Wisniewski suspected
Page 510 and 511: Piotr Wisniewski 2) Slow growth in
Page 512 and 513: Piotr Wisniewski US 3.8 3.8 3.9 4.3
Page 514 and 515: 498
Page 516 and 517: 500
Page 520 and 521: 3.2 Control variables Deborah Brans
Page 522 and 523: Deborah Branswijck and Patricia Eve
Page 524 and 525: Deborah Branswijck and Patricia Eve
Page 526 and 527: Korosh Gholami et al. Durkheim beli
Page 528 and 529: Korosh Gholami et al. The effect <s
Page 530 and 531: Measure the Unmeas
Page 532 and 533: Knowledge Capital 5. Efforts for de
Page 534 and 535: Exclusive use of L
Page 536 and 537: Emmanouil Gkinoglou from th
Page 538 and 539: Project Assets Need for synergies Q
Page 540 and 541: Table 5: Sustainability checklist E
Page 542 and 543: Emmanouil Gkinoglou The next challe
Page 544 and 545: Kai Mertins and Ronald Orth generat
Page 546 and 547: Kai Mertins and Ronald Orth Never<s
Page 548 and 549: Kai Mertins and Ronald Orth <strong
Page 550 and 551: Ad 2 Structure of
Page 552 and 553: Kai Mertins and Ronald Orth Hauff,
Page 554 and 555: Maria Simonova “Concept o
Page 556 and 557: Maria Simonova The concept regardin
Page 558 and 559: Maria Simonova Becker, G. S. (1983)
Page 560 and 561: 2. The aim of appl
Page 562 and 563: Nellija Titova W+I+DP+D+T+M+R (equa
Page 564 and 565: Nellija Titova performing better. I
Page 566 and 567: 5. Conclusions and furthe</
Page 568 and 569:
Nellija Titova Annex 2: Summary on
Page 570 and 571:
Meaning in the tab
Page 572 and 573:
Krishanthi Ganga Vithana et al. for
Page 574 and 575:
Krishanthi Ganga Vithana et al. sti
Page 576 and 577:
5. Conclusion Krishanthi Ganga Vith
Page 578 and 579:
562
Page 580 and 581:
564
Page 582 and 583:
The Tobing Knowledge Management Arc
Page 584 and 585:
Paul Lumbantobing et al. user, know
Page 586 and 587:
Paul Lumbantobing et al. people con
Page 588 and 589:
Paul Lumbantobing et al. influence
Page 590 and 591:
Develop KM Strategy Description Dev
Page 592 and 593:
Paul Lumbantobing et al. In <strong
Page 594 and 595:
Yuli Purwanti et al. Figure 1: Imag
Page 596 and 597:
Yuli Purwanti et al. Table below is
Page 598 and 599:
582
Page 600 and 601:
584
Page 602 and 603:
Nargiza Abdullaeva and Campbell War
Page 604 and 605:
Page 606 and 607:
Page 608 and 609:
Andreea Feraru and Nicoleta Ciucesc
Page 610 and 611:
Page 612 and 613:
Page 614 and 615:
Roxana Mironescu This could be <str
Page 616 and 617:
Roxana Mironescu Daft, R.L. (2002)
Page 618 and 619:
Paloma Sánchez and Oihana Basilio
Page 620 and 621:
Evaluating Intellectual Capital Usi
Page 622 and 623:
Table 1. CRS input efficiency score
Page 624 and 625:
Stelian Stancu and Anca Domnica Lup
Page 626 and 627:
José Vale et al. However, it is im
Page 628:
José Vale et al. Pöyhönen, A. an
show all

Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Intellectual Capital

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?