The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/1469-1930.htm

Intellectual
Intellectual capital and the firm: capital and the
evolution and research trends firm
Gregorio Martín-de Castro, Isabel Díez-Vial and
Miriam Delgado-Verde 555
Department of Management and Marketing,
Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain Received 20 December 2018
Revised 12 February 2019
6 May 2019
Abstract Accepted 29 June 2019
Purpose – The phenomenon of intellectual capital in the firm has been deeply researched and immensely
debated in the management literature in recent years. After three decades of evolution, it has become
established as a mature field of research. At this point, a review of its theoretical foundations and current and
future evolution provides us with the state of the art of intellectual capital in the firm. The purpose of this
paper is to present a quantitative review of the existing literature on intellectual capital in the firm.
Design/methodology/approach – In this paper, the authors present a quantitative review of the existing
literature on intellectual capital in the firm. To do so, the authors searched the JCR-SSCI database from 1990 to
2016 and identified 553 citing documents; these were split into three main periods in order to identify the
interactions and path dependencies existing between different foundations of research. In addition, areas of
current and future research connected with the theoretical foundations were identified. For these purposes,
the authors used both co-citation analyses as well as bibliographical coupling.
Findings – In this paper, three main stages of IC evolution have been identified with the main topics and
research frames, as well as their path dependencies. Additionally, four main areas of current and future
development of IC have been identified: IC measurement, IC in new business models, IC disclosure, and its role
in social capital and human resource practices.
Research limitations/implications – The present bibliometric study is a quantitative review of papers
published in the Web of Science database.
Originality/value – By its dimensions ‒ broad academic disciplines and longitudinal character ‒ this
bibliometric study constitutes a new quantitative review of the IC discipline, both drawing its intellectual
evolution in the last decades, and showing current and future research trends in IC and the firm.
Keywords State of the art, Co-citation analysis, Path dependence, Bibliografical coupling,
Quantitative review
Paper type Literature review

1. Introduction
Intellectual capital has become a vibrant topic in the management research field and more
specifically in strategic management and accounting. Originally coined by Galbraith (1969)
and disseminated by Stewart (1991) among management scholars during the nineties of the
twentieth century, the use of the word “capital” to denominate all of these types of intangible
or knowledge assets was a result of the economic roots of the concept, which was used to
describe the company’s value-creation process based on this bundle of assets. Nevertheless,
the term “capital” has proven controversial (Martín-de Castro et al., 2011).
The rise of a “knowledge-based economy” (Teece, 1998; Dean and Kretschmer, 2007) or a
“post-capitalist society” (Drucker, 1993) in the last decades of the twentieth century put the focus
on knowledge and intellectual capital as major production factors responsible for the economic
and financial prosperity of nations as well as key drivers of companies’ sustained competitive
advantages. In this way, the management of IC has become a key management task.

The authors acknowledge the financial support from the Spanish Ministries of Science and Innovation, and
Economy and Competitiveness (Grants Nos RTI2018-100823-B-I00; ECO2017-85763-R; ECO2015-65251-P; Journal of Intellectual Capital
Vol. 20 No. 4, 2019
and ECO2012-38190). The authors also would like to express their gratitude for the financial support pp. 555-580
provided by Banco Santander and Complutense University of Madrid (Grants Nos PR26/16-5B-1 and PR26/ © Emerald Publishing Limited
1469-1930
16-15B-1 and B-5). DOI 10.1108/JIC-12-2018-0221
JIC Especially coming from the resource-based view (Barney, 1991), scholars highlighted the
20,4 strategic character of IC responsible for sustained competitive advantage due to its rareness,
value, as well as difficulties in its imitation or substitution.
Considering IC and the firm as a research tradition, two main features can be highlighted.
The first one is its eclectic character in which different disciplines in the management
literature frame it from very different perspectives (Carayannis et al., 2014) and units of
556 analysis (Pedro et al., 2018). The second one is its recently reached maturity stage, as stated
by some scholars from different traditions (Martín-de Castro et al., 2011; Martín-de Castro,
2014; Secundo et al., 2018). Following Vogel and Güttel (2013), previous IC features
recommend the development systematic and quantitative literature research in order to
structure IC research stream evolution and recent trends to current IC academic eclectic
debate, as well as to provide some useful management orientation and practice.
In this vein, qualitative and quantitative review and analysis of the existing literature
have shed some light on this research field (see e.g. Serenko and Bontis, 2004; Serenko et al.,
2010; Inkinen, 2015; Pedro et al., 2018). However, there are no previous studies that have
presented a comprehensive and structured look at the evolution of and future trends in IC.
This is due to their narrow focus on a few academic journals in the intellectual capital/
knowledge management fields or only on empirical research and their descriptive analysis
of only the most prominent publications, authors, journals, etc.
Research on IC is still fragmented and far from conclusive. As Serenko and Bontis (2004,
2013) and Dean and Kretschmer (2007) state, although the interest in and popularity of IC have
increased exponentially over the last two decades for both academics and practitioners, some
of the initial general reviews of IC, as Martín-de Castro et al. (2011), were sometimes subjective
or based on personal impressions. Nevertheless, more recent works such as Dumay et al.
(2015), focusing on the IC and the public sector, or Buenechea-Elberdin (2017), focusing on IC
and innovation, offer rigorous, systematic and structured literature reviews, however; they are
narrow in scope. Consequently, there is a need to identify the dominant factors and the
intellectual evolution over time of this important management research stream.
In that sense, our research proposes a quantitative, structured, longitudinal review of
intellectual capital incorporating different theoretical foundations coming from different
disciplines and their interactions and evolution over time. This provides a very useful and
novel framework for understanding the nature and implications of intellectual capital in the
firm. In addition, an analysis of the main areas of future development in the field can give
the scientific community an opportunity to continue analyzing future lines of research into
intellectual capital. As indicated by Ramos-Rodríguez and Ruíz-Navarro (2004) and Vogel
and Güttel (2013), studies offering this kind of quantitative review are appropriate and
relevant when disciplines and research fields reach a certain degree of maturity.
The aforementioned necessity to focus on the evolution and the main recent trends in the
field of IC is a generalized claim in strategic management. There is an excessive
fragmentation of research that impedes the appropriate consolidation and advancement of
this relatively new discipline, which suffers from a lack of integration and coherent
theoretical frameworks, organizational phenomena and scope.
Thus, a longitudinal and more comprehensive approach is needed that includes a
complete and updated period of time (1990‒2016). Using different perspectives of social
sciences, such as management, business, economics and accounting, and analyzing their
interactions over time could provide a useful framework for understanding the nature and
effects of intellectual capital management in the firm.
The aim of this paper is twofold. First, we provide a comprehensive overview of the field
of intellectual capital. To do so, we conduct a quantitative review of the existing literature on
IC in the firm, identifying its intellectual foundations from a longitudinal perspective and
analyzing the existence of interactions between different research traditions in the same
period and subsequently over time. Second, we identify the major areas of future research Intellectual
that are connected to the theoretical foundations identified. To this end, we use two capital and the
bibliometric techniques: co-citation analysis to show how the combination of different firm
perspectives has developed research areas and how these different areas are conceptually
linked, and bibliographic coupling analysis to study future research trends in IC. As Jones
and Gatrell (2014) remarked, this bibliometric work helps to critically evaluate the
understandings within the field of intellectual capital in the firm, showing current and new 557
avenues for future research in the area of Management.
The following section of this paper explains the data gathering and bibliometric and
statistical methods used to obtain the documents used in the bibliometric analysis. Section 3
shows the main results obtained, and Section 4 analyses and discusses in its first
sub-section the theoretical foundations of intellectual capital in the firm identified with the
co-citation analysis. The sub-section following that presents and discusses the future
research trends identified in the field, based on the bibliographical coupling carried out in
the last six years (2010‒2016). Finally, a discussion, conclusion, limitations and future
research section is included.

2. Data and method

The degree of maturity reached by IC as an academic discipline, combined with its
multidisciplinary approach and the heterogeneous nature of the topics included, made it
advisable to perform quantitative and integrative bibliometric reviews and analyses of
intellectual capital in the firm. We included a variety of academic journals from different social
science perspectives, from 1990 to 2016, which provide the research community with a better
understanding of the evolution of intellectual capital, its main currents and its future trends,
as stated by some authors (Durand et al., 2017; Martín-de Castro, 2014; Serenko et al., 2010).
Although the utilization of bibliometric reviews in management is relatively new, the
origin dates back to mid-20th century (Garfield, 1964; Kessler, 1963), the usefulness and
relevance of this type of studies has grown because the majority of academic disciplines
have since evolved rapidly and have generated huge amounts of research outputs and
publications. As Vogel and Güttel (2013) highlighted, bibliometric reviews overcome some of
the drawbacks of other literature review methods in scientific disciplines wherein a large
variety of topics, methods, evidence and theoretical frameworks come into play. Although
in-depth qualitative reviews have clear advantages, they tend to reflect the idiosyncrasies of
the reviewers, who usually focus on a very specific topic. Also, the great quantity of
literature that currently exists makes bibliometric analyses helpful to delimit the scope,
evolution and trends of an academic discipline, by aggregating a large amount of
bibliographic data to provide unbiased analyses and results.
In this study, a quantitative review of the existing literature on IC in the firm is carried
out in order to identify, from a longitudinal perspective, its theoretical foundations and
current and future research trends.
In order to undertake the bibliometric analysis, we have followed a sequence of steps
(Figure 1). First, we established the specific research question that we tried to answer in the
research and the method that would fit best for this objective. Since in this research we aim
to identify both the main theoretical bases of intellectual capital and future research lines,
we have applied two methods: co-citation analysis and bibliographical coupling.
The second stage is the collection of data. We collected data from the Thomson Reuters
Social Science Citation Index (SSCI). In March 2017, we initially selected all documents that
included the search term “Intellectual capital” in the title, abstract, keywords of the author
and keywords defined by Web of Science, as this is the technical term generally used in the
literature, and we thus obtained 2,687 documents. First, we refined the search to
publications on science websites that were related to the perspective of our research ‒ IC
JIC The objective of the research is to identify the theoretical bases and future
20,4 Step 1. Research design research lines in IC, so we used co-citation analysis and bibliographical
coupling

The database employed is Social Science Citation Index (SSCI).

Step 2. Compilation of bibliometric
Refined by: subject of the publications, year of publication, impacted journals
data
and detailed review
558
Bibexel was the bibliometric software employed.
Two periods were analyzed 1990–1999 and 2000–2016.
Step 3. Analysis
Minimum cities of 5 in the first period, 10 in the second
Identification of groups with factor analysis: Varimax rotation

UCINET software was used for representing the relationships between

Step 4. Visualization
documents and the main groups

The groups created are interpreted in terms of theoretical bases (co-citation)

Step 5. Interpretation
and future research lines (bibliographical coupling)
Figure 1.
Research steps
Source: Adapted from Zupic and Čater (2015)

and the firm: management (1,297), economics (420), information science library science (348),
operations research management science (212) business finance (153), social science
interdisciplinary (133), and planning and development (54). This gave us a total of 2,182
documents. Second, we focused on papers published in impact journals, as these were peer
reviewed; this reduced the sample to 960 documents. Finally, the number of publications on
intellectual capital has grown exponentially since 1990 and few academic papers appeared
before that, so we focused on papers published between 1990 and the end of 2016.
We then performed an in-depth review of these papers in two independent rounds to
filter out those documents that were not in fact related to intellectual capital. For instance,
there were studies that had been done at the regional level that was more closely related
with macro-variables than with a corporate competitive perspective, or documents that cited
the term “intellectual capital” but they did so to use it in a theoretical or empirical way.
This second round left us with 553 documents (see Table I).
Bibliographic techniques allow us to identify trends, theoretical bases or groups of papers
based on similarities in the articles cited by them. As citation habits change over time, especially
in these fast-growing research lines, these techniques perform best within a limited time frame,
so we split the sample into sub-periods, similar to the approach used in previous studies
(Ramos-Rodríguez and Ruíz-Navarro, 2004; Ronda-Pupo and Guerras-Martín, 2010; Vogel and
Güttel, 2013). Additionally, this research aimed to identify interactions and existing dependencies
between the different foundations of the investigation. An analysis of co-citations allowed us to
determine the evolution of the theoretical foundations of intellectual capital, as well as the
changes that took place in the citations over time. Using the technique of bibliographic coupling,
the main areas for the future development of intellectual capital were also identified.

Total 1990–1999 2000–2009 2010–2016

Table I. Citing documents 553 32 128 393

Summary of the Cited documentsa 18,274 581 4,590 14,373
sample Note: aThe sum of the columns is larger than the total due to duplicities in the cited documents across periods
In order to conduct the bibliometric analysis, software bibExcel has been used, with data Intellectual
from Web of Science. This software performs bibliometric calculations based on the capital and the
similarities of matrices of cited documents in the case of the analysis of co-citations and the firm
documents from the field of study (citing articles) to perform the bibliographical coupling.
As Figure 2 shows, the number of articles on intellectual capital has grown exponentially
since its beginning. With fewer than 10 publications per year in the early 1990s, the number
of publications has exceeded 50 since 2005. This, together with the broad scope of IC 559
research, led us to divide it into three sub-periods: 1990‒1999; 2000‒2009; 2010‒2016,
because citation habits change over time, as shown by other previous bibliometric studies
(Díez-Vial and Montoro-Sánchez, 2017; Ramos-Rodríguez and Ruíz-Navarro, 2004;
Ronda-Pupo and Guerras-Martín, 2010). The selection of these periods responds to the
evolution of intellectual capital itself. As stated by different works (Martín-de Castro et al.,
2011; Chiucchi and Dumay, 2015; Buenechea-Elberdin, 2017; Secundo et al., 2018), the
evolution of IC research has gone through a series of stages and is currently entering a
fourth stage. The first one focused on IC measurement and the understanding of the IC
concept. The second provided legitimacy to intellectual capital as a subfield of Management
and linked it to company value creation. The third and most recent stage is characterized by
a certain degree of maturity, in an attempt to understand how organizations, and especially
firms, use, adopt and implement IC as a management practice. The fourth stage of IC
development that these authors intuitively propose fits well with some of the main concerns
that our work analyzes in the current and future IC developments sub-section.
Co-citations analysis and bibliographic coupling are used for processing the data. In both
techniques, it is assumed that a greater degree of overlap in the references of a pair of
articles implies a greater degree of relation or similarity between the two publications (Vogel
and Güttel, 2013; Meyer et al., 2014), as shown by Figure 3.
The co-citation technique analyzes the references or cited documents and considers that
their relationship is stronger or they are similar if they are cited together. In this way,
co-citation analysis delimits the knowledge base or the intellectual structure that exists in a
given field of study (Zupic and Čater, 2015) by tracing the intellectual roots and mapping the
intellectual heritage and evolution of an academic field (Vogel and Güttel, 2013). Co-citation
analysis also detects the most influential contributions to a certain field.

120

100

80

60

40

20

0 Figure 2.
Growth of
85
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
00
01
02
03

20 4
05
06
07
08
09
10
11

20 2
13

20 4
15
16

publications on the
0

1
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
20

20
20
20
20
20
20
20

20

20

intellectual capital
Source: Thomson Reuters SSCI, February 2017
JIC Bibliographical coupling, in turn, relates citing articles from a given field to others in the
20,4 same field on the basis of shared references, so two articles or citing documents are more
related or similar if they share a larger number of references (cited documents). Thus,
bibliographic analysis shifts the focus from the cited to citing documents, and it is suitable
for detecting current and future research trends, because citing documents are more recent
than the document cited by them. They, therefore, play a key role in understanding current
560 and future areas of interest and debate in a research field that is as vibrant as intellectual
capital and management (Subramaniam and Youndt, 2005; Vogel and Güttel, 2013).
After reviewing all references (cited documents), and in order to undertake the analysis
of the data (Step 4 in Figure 1), only articles with a minimum of co-quoted citations were
considered for analysis. Most studies agree on the need to restrict the sample to those
references that are frequently cited, but there is no consensus regarding the number of times
a cited document must appear in the sample to be included. Considering the dispersion of
the topics and perspectives of IC, we decided to establish a low minimum. This allowed us to
evaluate a myriad of approaches, including those that have been broadly adopted along
with less frequent but relevant ones (includes the details of the cited documents). In
particular, and considering the growing number of documents dealing with intellectual
capital, we established no minimum in the first period, 1990‒1999, a minimum of five cites in
the second period, 2000‒2009, and a minimum of ten cites in the last period, 2010‒2016. We,
thus, compensate for those documents that are cited more often in a recent period as a
consequence of the increasing number of documents dealing with the topic in order to
consider the relative importance of the documents selected in each period.
Therefore, this study includes 553 articles in the field of intellectual capital (citing
documents), distributed throughout the three periods in the following way: 32 in 1990‒1999;
128 in 2000‒2009; and 393 in 2010‒2016. We counted 18,274 references included/quoted in
those articles (cited documents), distributed in the three periods in the following way: 581 in
1990‒1999; 4,590 in 2000‒2009; and 14,373 in the last period, 2010‒2016.
Once we have collected the data, we need to identify the relationships that are established
between cited journals ‒ for co-citation analysis ‒ and between citing journals ‒ for
bibliographical coupling. These relationships become stronger the more similarity between
the cited/citing journals, being necessary to identify statistically significant groups of
documents to establish the theoretical base and future research lines. In the next section, we
present the main results, visualize them with UCINET software and interpret the groups of
documents in the light of existing research on intellectual capital.

3. Results
Since the aim of this research is to identify groups of studies that can be considered distinct
theoretical bases or new trends, we performed a factorial analysis, varimax rotation.
Relationships between each pair of documents were normalized using Salton because the
factorial analysis is sensitive to scale, an important issue in this study due to the differences
in the number of articles and references used in the three periods (Salton and McGill, 1983).
Once the matrices for each period were normalized, exploratory factor analysis (SPSS 22.0)

Co-citation
Cited documents a b a

Citing documents A A B
Figure 3. Bibliographical
Co-citation and coupling
bibliographic coupling
Source: Vogel and Güttel (2013)
was used to analyze sub-factors or factors by means of principal component analysis Intellectual
(Díez-Vial and Montoro-Sánchez, 2017). capital and the
When interpreting factors, we take into account the total variance explained, the firm
magnitude of the eigenvalues, as well as their number and logical interpretation within the
field of intellectual capital. Thus, the factor loads represent the correlation of a given
reference and the factor. References with loads greater than 0.7 are considered a key
contribution to the factor, and loads below 0.4 are marginal, so they are not considered. In 561
the specific case of the co-citation analysis, it is interesting to note that cited references that
carry significantly more than one factor are taken into account, since they represent bridge
cities or gate cities in the field of intellectual capital.
In order to reduce subjectivity in the extraction and interpretation of factors, two
researchers – authors of the study – performed the factorial interpretation independently,
for their subsequent pooling. As shown in the rest of the paper, different factors were
identified in each of the periods analyzed, except for the first one.

3.1 Evolution of the foundations in intellectual capital

One of the first practical and academic issues regarding IC was its conceptualization and the
identification of its main elements. The earliest IC definitions focus on the gap between a
company’s market value and other references such as the replacement cost of its assets
(Bontis, 1996; Galbraith, 1969) or its book value (Edvinsson and Malone, 1997; Lev, 1997;
Sveiby, 1997). Another series of studies highlight the heterogeneous nature of a set of
intangible and knowledge assets and their combination utilized by the company for
competitive purposes and value creation (Brooking, 1996; Stewart, 1996; Bueno, 1998;
Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998; Teece, 2000). Notably, some of them grouped different types of
intangible assets into broader categories, such as human capital or structural capital
(Edvinsson, 1997; Edvinsson and Malone, 1999; Hayton, 2005; Roos, 1998).
Alongside the three IC phases of co-citation analysis, and especially in the first two
(Martín-de Castro, 2014), the heterogeneous nature of IC assets posed one of the greater
challenges for IC literature: to establish a consistent typology of intellectual capital components.
In that sense, one basic IC structure was devised by Edvinsson and Malone (1997), who proposed
a bi-dimensional construct: human capital, as the knowledge and IC assets created by and
stored – embodied ‒ in organizational employees, and structural capital, as the supportive
organizational infrastructure that stores organizational routines and knowledge and empowers
human capital. They also differentiated between internal organizational capital and customer
capital derived from the relationships between the company and its customers.
Phase 1: business focus emergence. Thus, the first period, from 1990 to 1999, features the
emergence of intellectual capital as a field of study, which has been called “Phase 1: Business
Focus Emergence.” Figure 4 represents the cited documents that configure this period, and
the pattern of connections between them is measured by the number of times they are cited
in the same document. As may be observed, there are no clusters or well-defined factors, due
precisely to their eclectic and emerging character.
It may be noted that the great majority of works cited or referenced are monographs or
books aimed mainly at managers and business practices, which show seminal models of
identification and measurement of intellectual capital, and they are illustrated with cases of
companies and institutions that are pioneers in the management of intellectual capital.
Different pioneering works pointed to the leveraging of knowledge assets as the main driver
of corporate success stories during the early 2000s. Jointly with Thomas Stewart and Baruch
Lev, Leif Edvinsson of the Swedish Skandia insurance company was considered to be the first
Chief Knowledge Officer of IC management in practice (Bontis, 1998). In that emerging stage,
Stewart (1991), editor of Fortune and the Harvard Business Review, was one of the main
disseminators among management scholars in popularizing the concept of intellectual capital
JIC Argyris C1978
Polanyi M1966
Quinn J1992

20,4 Teece D1986

Nonaka I1995

Cohen W1990
Wiig K1993

Hamel G1994
Kaplan R1992

562 Stewart T V130

Stewart T1996

Booking A1996

Sveiby K1997
Leonard-Barton D1995

Edvinsson L1996

Liebowitz J1997

Notes: Each node represents a cited document and the connecting line between two nodes means
that they are cited together in any of the citing references. The strength of the line increases with
the normalized number of times they are cited together. The algorithm uses iterative fitting to
locate dots with smallest path lengths to one another closest in the graph. Unit of analysis: the
network created between cited references. Number of nodes/cited documents: 32. Main
characteristics: average degree: the number of cited references that appear together in the same
citing document: 4.13. h-Index: the largest number ×, such that there are × vertices of degree at
least × in the underlying graph is 5. Density: number of edges divided by the maximum number
possible, note the diagonal is ignored is 0.28. Closure: the number of non-vacuous transitive
Figure 4. triples divided by number of paths of length 2 is 0.40. Average distance: average geodesic
Network of distance amongst reachable pairs is 1.92. SD Distance: standard deviation of the geodesic
co-citations,
1990–1999 distances amongst reachable pairs is 0.76. Compactness: the mean of all the reciprocal distance
is 0.54

as America’s most valuable asset (Serenko et al., 2010). Other noteworthy initiatives appeared
mainly in Europe, North America and Australia. These include the New Club of Paris, an
association of academics and practitioners focused on the study of the transformation toward a
new knowledge-based economy and society, and the Spanish Foro Intellect (1998) where a
model for the management of IC was developed in workshops among academics, business
practice and consultancy. Other prominent contributors are Kaplan and Norton (1992),
Brooking (1996), Edvinsson and Malone (1997), Sveiby (1997) and Stewart (1996).
Phase 2: management and measurement models of IC. The second period analyzed, from
2000 to 2009, has been called “Phase 2: Management and Measurement Models of IC.” This is a
phase of expansion as a field of study that focuses on scientific and academic research, resulting
in numerous scientific publications. As Table I shows, from 32 citing documents and 581 cited
documents in Phase 1, this second phase accounts with 581 citing documents and 4,590 cited
documents. During this stage, a certain consensus is reached in considering human capital,
structural capital, and social capital as the three main components of IC. They represent different
manifestations of companies’ knowledge assets. In this way, and based on a review of the
literature (Bontis et al., 2002; Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998; Reed et al., 2006; Subramaniam and
Youndt, 2005), human capital, in a very general sense, includes explicit and more importantly,
tacit knowledge embodied in employees, as well as their ability to generate it, which is useful for
company’s purposes, including aptitudes, know-how, and attitudes. Structural capital includes Intellectual
two types of capital: organizational capital, as the combination of explicit and implicit knowledge, capital and the
which structures, develops and gives cohesion to the organizational activity and values of a firm
company in an effective and efficient way, and technological capital, which refers to the
combination of knowledge directly linked to a company’s production process and technical
system. Finally, social capital encompasses two types of IC assets (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998;
Reed et al., 2006): internal social capital, based on internal relationships among organizational 563
members, and external social capital, based on inter-organizational relationships between the
company and its stakeholders, which is labeled by some IC authors as “relational capital” (Bueno,
1998; CIC, 2003; Martín-de Castro et al., 2011; Pike et al., 2005). Other authors highlighted the key
role played by a company’s customers or “customer capital” (Bontis, 1998; Edvinsson and
Malone, 1997; Moon and Kym, 2006; Roos and Roos, 1997; Stewart, 1996; Wu et al., 2008).
As shown in Figure 5 and described in Table II, within intellectual capital, five
factors have been identified in this phase; these are briefly described and interpreted.
They are the following.

Adler P2002

Itami H1987
Coleman J1988 Dierickx I1989 Burt R1997
Machlup F1980
Polanyi M1966 Hamel G1994
Edvinsson L1996b
Grant R1996a
Uzzi B1997 Kogut B1996 Becker G1964
Wernerfelt B1984 Amit R1993
Porter M1980 Grant R1991
Sveiby K1997
Hall R1992 Dyer J1998

Teece D1997 Zander U1995 Peteraf M1993

Schiuma G2007 Burt R1992
Huselid M1995 Grant R1996b
Stewart T1996 Kogut B1992 Tsai W1998
Cohen W1990 Hatch N2004
Youndt M1996
Zack M1999
Nonaka I1991
Lepak D1999
Winter S1982 Nonaka I1995 Snell S1992
Kaplan R1992
Davenport T1998 Hitt M2001
Barney J1991 Bontis N1996
Nahapiet J1998 Edvinsson L1996a Klein D1998
Schultz T1961 Penrose Youndt M2004a Brooking A1996 Bontis N2000 Andriessen D2004b

Drucker P1993
Subramaniam M2005
Bontis N1998 Bontis N2002a
Youndt M2004b
Lev B2001
Nonaka I1994 Bontis N1999b Bukh P2001
Petty R2000 Edvinsson L1997
Wiig K1997 Bontis N1999a Bontis N2001 Bontis N2002b
Roos J1996
Spender J1996
Guthrie J2000
Prahalad C1990 Hair J1998
Ulrich D1998
Quinn J1992 Roos J Intellectual Capital
Sullivan P1998
Brennan N2001
Joia L2000
Bontis N2003
Petrash G1996 Roos G1997

Bozzolan S2003

Notes: Each node represents a cited document and the connecting line between two nodes means
that they are cited together in any of the citing references. Number of nodes/cited documents: 89.
To illustrate the most significant connections in a clear form, the graphic representation
incorporates connections with a Salton value higher than 299. The algorithm uses iterative fitting
to locate dots with smallest path lengths to one another closest in the graph. Unit of analysis: the
network created between cited references. Symbols for each factor: Square in light blue (Strategic
Management foundations); Up triangle in red (Knowledge-Based View), box in orange
(Management of intellectual capital), Down triangle in green (Human capital, social capital and
networks), Circle in box in yellow (Measurement of intellectual capital), circle in white (no load
with specific factor). Main network characteristics: average degree: the number of cited references
that appear together in the same citing document: 27.55. h-index: the largest number ×, such that
there are × vertices of degree at least × in the underlying graph is 30. Density: number of edges
divided by the maximum number possible, note the diagonal is ignored is 0.32. Closure: the
number of non-vacuous transitive triples divided by number of paths of length 2 is 0.43. Average Figure 5.
distance: average geodesic distance amongst reachable pairs is 1.72. SD Distance: standard Network of
co-citations and
deviation of the geodesic distances amongst reachable pairs is 0.53. Compactness: the mean of all factors, 2000‒2009
the reciprocal distance is 0.65
JIC The first and most important factor focuses on the theoretical frameworks from the
20,4 strategic management for the study of intellectual capital, so it has been called “strategic
management foundations.” From an academic perspective, the nature and entrepreneurial
implications of the emerging intellectual capital phenomenon are analyzed and studied in a
bid to frame and fit this new phenomenon within the Management field. The main theories
used are as follows: resource-based view, dynamic capabilities, knowledge-based view
564 (KBV ), evolutionary economics and the intellectual capital view.
The intellectual foundations during that stage could be found in studies by Winter and
Nelson (1982), Spender and Grant (1996), Teece et al. (1997), Teece (1998), Ulrich (1998), Youndt
et al. (2004), Youndt and Snell (2004) and Subramaniam and Youndt (2005), among others.
The second factor is called the “knowledge-based view of the firm” (Nonaka, 1991; Grant,
1996; Kogut and Zander, 1996; among others). This theoretical framework emerged from the
resource-based view by focusing on knowledge management and organizational learning
both inside and outside the firm. It emphasizes the importance of knowledge as a key
production factor in the new economy, and it defines the nature, antecedents, management
and implications of intellectual capital, or knowledge assets in organizations. All this can be
considered as a first solid step to address the theoretical development of intellectual capital.
Among the most important works cited are Nonaka (1991), Grant (1996), Kogut and Zander
(1996) and Hatch and Dyer (2004).
The third factor is called “Management of intellectual capital”, because it groups
together a set of pioneering works on intellectual capital headed in great part by Professor
Nick Bontis from Canada. Within the field of intellectual capital, he is recognized
worldwide as one of the most influential and most important contributors in the IC
research field. In this study, Bontis starts to clearly note the importance of the burgeoning
field of intellectual capital and the difficulties of measuring and managing these intangible
assets, which is a first step in advancing the intellectual capital models. The main studies
referenced within this third factor include works by Bontis (2001), Bontis et al. (2002) or
Bontis (2003).
The fourth factor focuses on the central and differential aspects of intellectual capital
such as human capital, social capital and business networks, so it has been called “human
capital, social capital and networks.” Since the origin of intellectual capital, as the seminal
study by Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998) indicated, the concept of social capital has been
assigned a crucial role. Other seminal studies such as Adler and Kwon (2002) explored the
importance of social capital in the economy and business. In this way, the different
components of intellectual capital begin to become more significant in an independent
manner, leading to a deeper understanding of them, specifically the studies on social capital
and human capital presented by Dean and Kretschmer (2007) in their analysis of the robust
expansion of these components of intellectual capital, particularly since the late 1990s.
Among the most cited and prominent works in this subfield of the study of intellectual

Factor analysis Network analysis

No. of Variance explained
No. Label docs Eigenvalue (%) Degree Constraint

1 Strategic management foundations 38 12.000 12.276 27.578 0.208

2 Knowledge-based view 16 9.488 9.305 27.125 0.158
Table II. 3 Management of intellectual capital 11 5.780 7.269 22.545 0.185
Second phase, 2000– 4 Human capital, social capital and
2009: factor analysis networks 7 5.619 6.601 30.714 0.191
and network metrics 5 Measurement of intellectual capital 9 3.870 6.317 35.555 0.148
capital are Becker (1964), Burt (1992), Huselid (1995), Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998, Hitt et al. Intellectual
(2001) and Adler and Kwon (2002). capital and the
The last factor identified, as expected, focuses on the identification and measurement of firm
intellectual capital, and it has been called “Measurement models of intellectual capital.”
Characteristic features of intellectual capital, such as those under consideration, from an
accounting point of view, or their intangible character, making it difficult to identify an
economic value, lead to additional problems for their effective management (Edvinsson, 565
1997). The roots of a tree or the submerged part of an iceberg were commonly used
analogies in the earliest stages of the development of intellectual capital, graphically
illustrating this key concern. The main studies referenced include papers by authors such as
Lev (2001), which empirically demonstrated the major, sustained gap that exists when
comparing a company’s market value and book value, Kaplan and Norton (1992) with their
influential “business scorecard,” one of the most popular strategic management tools, or
Edvinsson and Malone (1997) who proposed the model of measurement and management, in
addition to Brooking (1996), Stewart (1996) or Roos and Roos (1997).
As progress is made in intellectual capital research, more and more aspects in this area are
being studied from different perspectives, which is an indication of how mature the concept is
becoming. This can be seen in the third phase of the study, which identifies seven factors.
Phase 3: IC as practice. The third period analyzed, from 2010 to 2016, has been labeled
“Phase 3: IC as Practice.” It corresponds to the period of the greatest number of scientific
publications, and the problematic nature and diversity of the issues involved are reflected in
the seven factors or subfields identified within intellectual capital, as shown in Table III and
Figure 6. As Secundo et al. (2018) stated, the third stage of IC research focuses on the
management of IC as practice and how intellectual capital works inside organizations.
The problem of measurement and its theoretical approach continues to be among the
main focuses of interest, with other more novel and common issues of debate reaching
maturity, such as criticism and identification of problems within IC that prevent its
consolidation and progress as a structured theoretical body of knowledge (Martín-de Castro,
2014; Reed et al., 2006), or the decision to disclose intellectual capital in annual reports. In the
following paragraphs, we explain each factor found in the last period.
The first factor, called “Measurement of intellectual capital in business reality,” which
looks at business as practice, focuses on developing measurement models for intellectual
capital and empirically contrasting them with business reality. Among the main studies
cited are Stewart (1991), Saint-Onge (1996) and Sveiby (1997).
The second factor, called “Knowledge-based view and IC-based view,” focuses on the
two theoretical currents most used in this period to define IC: the KBV of the firm (Grant,
1996; Kogut and Zander, 1992, Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995) and the intellectual
capital-based view (ICBV ) (Reed et al., 2006; Martín-de Castro et al., 2011). The proposal of

Factor analysis Network analysis

No. of Variance
No. Label docs Eigenvalue explained (%) Degree Constraint

1 Measurement of intellectual capital 100 25.242 13.427 27.667 0.205

2 Knowledge-based view and IC-based view 19 15.661 8.330 26.692 0.162
3 VAIC: Value Added of intellectual capital 21 11.665 6.205 23.083 0.184
4 Intellectual capital and dynamic markets 18 9.843 5.236 38.000 0.133 Table III.
5 Intellectual Capital Critics 11 7.594 4.039 24.833 0.211 Third phase, 2010–
6 Intellectual capital disclosure 15 6.268 3.334 36.600 0.138 2016: factor analysis
7 IC as strategic tool 14 5.017 2.669 20.333 0.248 and network metrics
JIC
20,4

566

Notes: Each node represents a cited document and the connecting line between two nodes means
that they are cited together in any of the citing references. Number of nodes/cited documents: 89.
To illustrate the most significant connections in a clear form, the graphic representation
incorporates connections with a Salton value higher than 299. The algorithm uses iterative fitting
to locate dots with smallest path lengths to one another closest in the graph. Unit of analysis: the
network created between cited references. Symbols for each factor: Square in light blue
(Measurement of intellectual capital); Up triangle in red (Knowledge-Based View and IC-Based
View), box in orange (Value Added of Intellectual Capital (VAIC)), Down triangle in green
(Intellectual capital and dynamic markets), Circle in box in yellow (Intellectual capital critics),
Diamond in blue dark (Intellectual capital disclosure), Plus in purple (IC as strategic tool), circle
in white (no load with specific factor). Main network characteristics: average degree: the number
of cited references that appear together in the same citing document: 67.79. h-index: the largest
number ×, such that there are × vertices of degree at least x in the underlying graph is 71. Density:
number of edges divided by the maximum number possible, note the diagonal is ignored is 0.32.
Figure 6. Closure: the number of non-vacuous transitive triples divided by number of paths of length 2 is
Network of 0.43. Average distance: average geodesic distance amongst reachable pairs is 1.68. SD Distance:
co-citations and
factors, 2010‒2016 standard deviation of the geodesic distances amongst reachable pairs is 0.48. Compactness: the
mean of all the reciprocal distance is 0.66

Reed et al. (2006) was a milestone in configuring intellectual capital as a mid-range theory
in management because they suggested using pragmatic decision making to address some
of the issues that existed in other theoretical approaches, such as the resource-based view.
This is another step in the direction that we observed in the second factor of the previous
period in an attempt to develop a stronger theoretical approach to intellectual capital.
Among the studies most cited in this subfield are Reed et al. (2006) and Roos and Roos
(1997) from ICBV, and Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), Kogut and Zander (1992) and Grant
(1996) from a KBV.
The third factor is called “Value Added Intellectual Capital,” and it focuses again on the
recurring issue concerning the measurement of intellectual capital, but with an important
novelty, in this case utilizing a new and specific methodology: the value-added intellectual
capital (VAIC). This method evaluates a firm’s creation of market value, taking into account
its intellectual capital value. Among the main studies cited in this category are those by
Maditinos et al. (2011), Mavridis (2004) and Kamath (2008).
 The fourth factor is called “Intellectual capital and dynamic markets” because it analyses Intellectual
the role of intellectual capital in dynamic and technological markets, based on innovation capital and the
and knowledge. The pioneering work of Subramaniam and Youndt (2005) that links firm
intellectual capital and technological innovation helps to understand different added values
that intellectual capital can have in dynamic markets and environments. In this sense, the
articles considered here push intellectual capital scientific studies toward a specific field,
which involves an important breakthrough in the development of the intellectual capital 567
approach. Among the main studies referenced in this subfield of intellectual capital research
are Hayton (2005) or Conner and Prahalad (1996).
The fifth factor comes fully into what can be called open criticism of the intellectual
capital approach and the label used is “Intellectual capital critics.” In this sense, the key
study of Dean and Kretschmer (2007) highlighted the controversy, especially in economy,
finance and accounting debate, of whether ideas, knowledge or intellectual assets can be
called “capital” (Can ideas be capital?). The studies with the most references include the
studies by Mouritsen (2006), Mouritsen et al. (2001) and Marr and Chatzkel (2004).
The sixth factor is called “Intellectual capital disclosure,” which in parallel with the
previous factor and by generating interest in the fields of finance and accounting results in
other novel studies that indicate that intellectual capital is maturing as a field. This refers to
the decision of whether or not organizations should disclose intellectual capital. The
advantages and drawbacks of this practice, the increasing necessity of management
transparency, its voluntary character, etc., are emerging topics in this subfield. This
represents advances in the intellectual capital field as it moves toward issues on decision
making in the firm. Among the main studies cited are the studies by García-Meca et al.
(2005), Cerbioni and Parbonetti (2007), Healy and Palepu (2001) or Bukh et al. (2005).
The last factor identified is called “IC as a strategic tool” because it focuses on the role of
intellectual capital as a strategic tool. Understanding the potential, uses and value of these assets
to improve competitiveness and business development is the main component. Key references
include Bontis et al. (1999), Brennan and Connell (2000) and Bontis (2004).
Development patterns across phases. After analyzing the evolution of the co-citation
networks over the three study periods, different cohesion measures have been calculated,
understood as the number of times that two cited references appear together. Table IV
shows the main measures. On the one hand, we observe a clear increase in the cited
references and connections between them. Thus, there is an evolution of IC literature from a

1990–1999 2000–2009 2010–2016

Average degree 4.13 27.55 65.79

h-index 5 30 71
Degree centralization 0.22 0.55 0.58
Density 0.28 0.32 0.32
Closure 0.40 0.43 0.43
Average distance 1.92 1.72 1.68
SD distance 0.76 0.53 0.48
Compactness 0.54 0.65 0.66
Notes: Unit of analysis: the network created between cited references. Average degree: the number of cited
references that appear together in the same citing document. h-index: the largest number × such that there
are × vertices of degree at least × in the underlying graph. Density: number of edges divided by the
maximum number possible, note the diagonal is ignored. Closure: the number of non-vacuous transitive Table IV.
triples divided by number of paths of length 2. Average distance: average geodesic distance amongst Cohesion evolution
reachable pairs. SD distance: standard deviation of the geodesic distances amongst reachable pairs. and the co-citation
Compactness: the mean of all the reciprocal distance networks
JIC diverse group of cited documents in the first period toward an increasing similarity in the
20,4 pattern of cited documents; the average similarity of the references cited increased from 4.13
in the period 1990‒1999 to 27.55 in the period 2000‒2009 and to 65.79 in the last period
2010‒2016. Likewise, the h-index went from 5 in 1990‒1999 to 71 in 2010‒2016.
On the other hand, the results in Table IV also show that the overall density of the
network in each period is almost constant, which indicates that the number of connections
568 from all the possible connections between cited documents has hardly changed, that is the
cohesion of the literature over time has not increased. Also, the average distance between
two cited documents, that is, the number of other cited documents that it would be necessary
to jump through in order to connect them, has not changed either. Taking into account these
network data over time, we can conclude that although the literature on IC has attracted
much new research in recent periods, the studies have maintained their structure over time,
with no increase in each research group’s awareness of others.

3.2 New trends in intellectual capital

After analyzing the intellectual roots or foundations of IC, the main lines and research
trends are presented in this second part of the results. Through bibliographic coupling, an
analysis of citing documents in the last period 2010‒2016 has been conducted. Figure 7
shows the four major trends in intellectual capital research. Each of them is described below.
The first and most important factor found refers to the “advances in the measurement of
intellectual capital in specific industrial settings.” This trend of current and future research
in intellectual capital shows the importance always granted to the improvement of the
identification and measurement of the different components of intellectual capital. The
analysis of how IC works and contributes to organizational value creation in specific
industrial settings, using new techniques such as AHP, economic value added, VAIC, etc.,
constitutes one of the great challenges for future development in this field of study. Among
them, we can highlight the utilization of mixed methods to assess IC (Ayranci and

Figure 7. Notes: Blue square nodes represent the new trends result of the factor analysis and white circle
New trends in node represents a citing document. When a citing document has a load higher that 0.4999, a
intellectual capital,
2010‒2016 connection line to the factor is represented. The algorithm uses iterative fitting to locate dots with
smallest path lengths to one another closest in the graph
Colakoglu, 2014; Solitander and Tidström, 2010) or the proposals for measuring IC in Intellectual
different contexts, such as the hotel industry (Kim et al., 2011), banking sector (Shih et al., capital and the
2011; Wang et al., 2013) or education (Lee, 2010), which shows empirical studies of IC in firm
action, as claimed by Chiucchi and Dumay (2015).
The second factor, trend in future research, is represented by human capital, knowledge
and innovation, and their interactions with other components of intellectual capital (Morris
and Snell, 2011; Teo et al., 2014). Understanding how and when it originates, and under what 569
circumstances it can be best used is important to improve business competitiveness. In this
sense, the selection and design of a set of human resource policies and the development of
knowledge capabilities in order to achieve innovation and value creation in organizations
are emerging as a fruitful line of incipient research (Cabello-Medina et al., 2011; Hsu and
Sabherwal, 2011; Pasamar et al., 2015; Su and Carney, 2013, among others).
The third factor identified is related to the role of intellectual capital in new business
models, which extends the classic domain of IC to include both the inside and the outside of
the organization (Secundo et al., 2018), and to include new scenarios in business and the
economy by addressing its role in emerging businesses (start-ups and entrepreneurship), as
well as new business realities and activities such as the Internet of Things or cloud-based
management. Among them, we can cite the study assessing IC in a pioneering company in
the Internet of Things such as Cisco (Murray et al., 2016), the link between IC and cloud-
based accounting and finance structures (Clearly and Quinn, 2016), and the impact of IC on
start-up expectations (Matricano, 2016).
The fourth and last factor identified was already a novel aspect in the previous period
and refers to the decision on whether or not to disclose intellectual capital reports. This new
research stream on IC directly seeks to understand the impact of IC management in
organizations on the economy and society, representing one of the most promising avenues
of research in IC, which is referred by Chiucchi and Dumay (2015) and Secundo et al. (2018)
as the fourth stage of intellectual capital. What are the effects of voluntary IC disclosure and
how big is their impact? The integration of IC into more general business reports is a
common emerging and unresolved key issue in IC management. Of note is the study by Low
et al. (2015), which makes an international comparison of voluntary IC reporting by
companies from different countries, the effect of IC disclosure on the effectiveness of
corporate strategies, such as mergers and acquisitions (Ott et al., 2014), as well as its causes
(Bellora and Guenther, 2013), or the necessity to standardize those IC reports so that they
include the same information (Dumay and Cai, 2015; Goebel, 2015; Melloni, 2015).

4. Discussion, conclusion, limitations and future research

4.1 Discussion
The findings in this study regarding IC foundations reveal the breadth of the expanded field
of intellectual capital ‒ in coherence with the high, and sometimes excessive, fragmentation
of current Management research, as pointed out by Durand et al. (2017). In that sense, and
in order to shed some light on the evolution of IC foundations, in this sub-section, we attempt
to order and connect the networks extracted from the extant literature on the basis of shared
references between sub-periods, showing recomposition, differentiation, continuity,
strategic turn and emergence as different strands of IC research (see Figure 8).
As has been mentioned, and as occurring many times in management phenomena, the
first stage of the emergence of IC research is characterized by a set of seminal contributions
based mainly on business practice in the form of newly IC measurement and management
models and tools showing business case evidence from pioneering companies in this field.
The transition to the second stage of development (2000‒2009), which involved the growth
of IC research within Management research, was preceded by the importance given during
the 1990s to the Resource-Based View (Barney, 1991; Newbert, 2007) as a key theory in
JIC 2000–2009 2010–2016
20,4 Knowledge-Based View
Knowledge-Based View
Recomposition and IC-Based View
Strategic Management
Foundations

570 Management Differentiation Strategic Tool

Differentiation VAIC

Measurement Continuity Measurement

Social Capital and

Strategic turn Dynamic Markets
Networks

Emergence Disclosure
Figure 8.
Development patterns
of IC research Emergence Critics

strategic management, as well as the emergence of the KBV (Grant, 1996). These are, in fact,
two of the main factors identified in the second period of analysis, showing the key role
given by academics to the IC theoretical foundations and strategic analysis. In that sense,
several high impact seminal studies for both strategic management and management, in
general, were published. These dealt with the emerging construct of social capital (Adler
and Kwon, 2002), the importance and relationships of intellectual capital and social capital
(Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998), which can be considered determinants to the emergence and
consolidation of social capital and networks as a key research tradition of IC identified in the
second stage, jointly with the publication of the review of models for the measurement and
management of intellectual capital written by Bontis (2001), consolidating measurement and
management of IC in the firm as two important research traditions at this second stage and
reflecting the important efforts made by academics in order to measure and manage IC.
The transition to the third stage of IC development entails the consolidation and maturity
of a research field characterized by an abundance of research topics and the emergence of
others, which include the rise of some problems and the focus of IC as a business practice in
different industrial settings. Thus, one of the research streams identified in this third stage
of development makes a special effort to reconsider and take a critical look at the problems
inherent to this field research, as shown by Figure 7. Among them is the discussion about
“Can ideas be capital?” (Dean and Kretschmer, 2007), which highlights the concerns about
the economic roots and meaning of intellectual capital.
The third stage of IC implies the refinement and reconfiguration of the IC theoretical
frameworks (strategic management and KBV ) into one more framework focused on the
understanding the management and strategic implications of IC and knowledge assets on
the KBV and ICBV, thus corresponding to a mature discipline. This transition was
reinforced with the publication of a key study, “An intellectual capital-based view,” by Reed
et al. (2006), which framed IC as a middle-range theory of Management, between a more
academic theory as RBV and the business practice more interested in the management and
measurement of IC. In this same way, and as one of the main aims of IC research, its
continuity and differentiation, the search for new methods, models and measurement tools,
such as VAIC, reflect its importance and the necessity for it to continuously evolve.
 Other streams of IC evolution included in Figure 8 show how social capital and networks Intellectual
factor identified in the second stage becomes dynamic markets in the third stage capital and the
(2010‒2016), reflecting the importance of the environmental setting and its dynamism for firm
the field of IC as business practice, as highlighted by Secundo et al. (2018) for the most recent
stage of IC research.
Finally, the impact of IC on society and environment can be seen in the emerging factor
of IC disclosure, giving information of strategic character about the activities and potential 571
of value creation of companies for different stakeholders, and integrating this information
into more general corporate sustainability reports. In the Internet era, transparent
management and stakeholders’ engagement are key elements for a firm’s legitimacy,
survival and competitiveness (Cabrilo et al., 2009).

4.2 Conclusions
The results of our study imply new and relevant evidence for the academic and practitioner
communities interested in the phenomenon of intellectual capital in the firm, due to four
main reasons. First, considering previous bibliometric works, our research offers a wider
analysis, including a longer period of analysis ( from 1990 to 2016), and a wider perspective,
taking into account research coming from Economics, Management, Accounting, among
other scientific disciplines. Thus, our quantitative and longitudinal research reveals a
breadth of topics and disciplines that characterize intellectual capital in the firm, in parallel
with the majority of phenomena covered by the strategic management field, as stated by
Durand et al. (2017). Second, after three decades of research on the IC and the firm, a
bibliometric study is very useful for disciplines with a certain degree of maturity (Vogel and
Güttel, 2013), helping in putting a certain order and also understanding a field research
evolution and current trends of development. Third, our research includes two
complementary analyses: co-citation analysis in order to understand the theoretical roots
of this field research, and bibliographical coupling, showing recent and future research
developments in the field of IC and the firm. Finally, as Figure 8 shows, complimentary
analysis of path dependence and evolution is developed in order to understand the
dynamics of evolution of IC theoretical roots among the different stages of development.
In our research, the initial web of networks that was extracted from the extant literature
based on the analysis of co-citations shows the breadth and depth of documents that
represent the foundations of IC. In order to shed light on this research field, the period was
split into three sub-periods due to the changing patterns of citations that usually occur as
the field evolves through successive stages of development. The three sub-periods,
1990‒1999, 2000‒2009, and 2010‒2016, fit with the evolution and stages of IC development
proposed by authors such as Chiucchi and Dumay (2015) or recently by Secundo et al. (2018),
who proposed the beginning of a new fourth stage, a key issue that is addressed in our
research through the bibliographic coupling analysis.
Considering co-citation analysis, our results show three remarked stages of development
of this field research. Whereas the first sub-period of IC emergence (1990‒1999) was derived
from business practitioners focused on understanding the meaning and measurement of the
IC assets of a firm (Bontis, 1996; Brooking, 1996; Edvinsson and Sullivan, 1996), the
subsequent second period (2000‒2009) arises with a marked growing interest among
academics and practitioners (Stewart, 1991; Bontis, 2001; Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998; Adler
and Kwon, 2002; among others), introducing IC research field to the business, management,
and accounting academic communities. In that sense, and especially strategic management,
different research streams as the resource-based view, dynamic capabilities view, KBV and
evolutionary economics were used to frame and understand it.
Also, a key identifying element of IC and the firm literature is its focus on the
development of IC measurement models and tools, such as those developed at this stage by
JIC Bontis (2001, 2003), Bontis et al. (2002). Finally, the second period is characterized by the
20,4 emergence of new issues focused on the sources, drivers and management of different
components of IC, with human and social capital being topics of growing interest.
The last sub-period (2010‒2016) analyzing the foundations of IC shows a certain degree
of maturity, continuing classic IC topics, as the development of new tools for IC
measurement as value added of intellectual capital (VAIC), the appearance of the first
572 important criticisms and concerns made on this field, such as those by Reed et al. (2006),
Dean and Kretschmer (2007), Mouritsen (2006) and Martín-de Castro (2014), and the
emergence of new issues focused on understanding the management of IC in practice or the
issue of IC disclosure.
Considering IC as practice, a research stream about analyzing the role of IC as a strategic
tool (Bontis, 2004) or in new dynamic and technological industrial settings (Hayton, 2005;
Subramaniam and Youndt, 2005) is drawn. Also, another new IC focus, framed from an
Accounting and Financial, arises as the academic and practitioner debate about how, when,
and under what conditions firms’ IC is disclosed, as well as the possibility and its integration
in company’s sustainability and/or more traditional financial statements.
Nevertheless, our study goes beyond a “historical look” of IC and the firm, and we offer
complimentary results, through bibliographic coupling analysis, by taking into account the
current and future avenues for IC research in the firm. Thus, a critical element in the
advancement and consolidation of IC in Management literature is the work that needs to be
done (Reed et al., 2006) to improve and refine the measurement tools – such as AHP, VAIC,
etc. ‒ for different components and elements of IC operating in different and specific
industrial settings. By focusing on management as practice and the micro-foundations of IC
(Teo et al., 2014), such as human and social capital, human resource and knowledge
management practices, both inside and outside companies, another important avenue of
research looks at how IC is dynamically created, accumulated and transferred (Hsu and
Sabherwal, 2011; Pasamar et al., 2015, among others).
Other promising future IC research lines identified are concerned with the role of IC in
new Internet and digital business models and entrepreneurship (Murray et al., 2016; Clearly
and Quinn, 2016), and the impact of IC management in organization, the economy and
society, in general, by linking and disclosing IC management and business sustainability
and transparency (Dumay and Cai, 2015; Low et al., 2015; Melloni, 2015; among others).
In summary, evolution and historical roots of intellectual capital and the firm as a field of
research have followed the traditional management and strategy model Academics,
Business and Consultancy (ABC). Thus, the emerging Phase 1 was characterized by the
prominence of practitioners and academics focused on business practice developing
pioneering contributions in the field of IC. As expected, the following phases addressed the
interest of academia from very different perspectives and unit of analysis. Finally, like many
other management fields reaching maturity stages, critics and prospects appear.
As a mature field of research, many future developments are open, as highlighted by
bibliographical coupling. Among them, framing IC as practice, in parallel with the well-known
SAP “Strategy-as-Practice” (Whittington, 1996), will open the real business utility to IC, facing
numerous and specific industry and company setting problems. Also, the focus and main
interest of IC research on its measurement and reporting give us a unique opportunity for
cross-fertilizing arena among management, strategy and accounting scholars and business
practitioners. This is one of the main IC challenges. Another very fruitful avenue of research
for intellectual capital will come from integrating business and sustainability.

4.3 Limitations and future research

This quantitative research has several limitations. The first one is about the limited range of
academic sources used for both co-citation analysis and bibliographic coupling. We decided
to focus on journals from different academic disciplines included in the Journal Citation Intellectual
Report in order to use accepted academic research. Nevertheless, additional research on IC capital and the
and the firm has been omitted, as those works published in journals included in other firm
academic repositories (e.g. Scopus). In that sense, future works could include a wider range
of publication sources, as papers published in additional journals included in Scopus,
combining them in order to have a more complete picture of the IC and the firm as a very
fruitful field research. As a discipline coming from business practice, many pieces of 573
literature were published outside the scientific-academic circuit. In that sense, future
research could include practitioner-oriented books as key pieces of citing documents.
A second limitation of this research includes the focus and level of analysis. By developing
a longitudinal quantitative co-citation analysis and bibliographical coupling, a general picture
of different stages of IC development can be analyzed, jointly with a general view of current
and future research trends. Nevertheless, a deeper understanding of each of the research
traditions included or current research trends is missing. In that way, this type of quantitative
reviews of literature could be complemented in a cross-fertilization way with more traditional
literature reviews based on the accumulated knowledge and deep experience of IC researchers,
like previous ones made by Martín-de Castro et al. (2011) or Pedro et al. (2018). Considering the
unit of analysis, our research focuses on the firm. Nevertheless, IC phenomenon is studied in
other units of analysis, as countries or regions (Pedro et al., 2018).
A third limitation is that bibliometric methods introduce quantitative rigor into the
subjective evaluation of literature, but the empirical analysis is based on the general
assumption that the more two papers are cited together ( for co-citation) or the more two papers
share references, the more they are involved in the same theoretical approach. As a result,
heavily cited articles are likely to have exerted a greater influence on the subject than those less
frequently cited (Pilkington and Chai, 2008). Although its validity as a means of exploring the
intellectual structure of a scientific discipline has been amply demonstrated, this assumption
may misrepresent the real structure of the discipline. Additionally, future bibliometric IC review
could include a comparison of the last three decades (1990‒1999; 2000‒2009; and 2010‒2019) in
order to capture IC evolution and intellectual roots during the last whole three decades.
Finally, considering bibliographical coupling conclusions, they should be taking into
account carefully, especially those about future research lines. Its assumptions and nature
are focused on understanding current IC research trends, whereas future IC trends are based
on the latest available data of 2016. This way, they should be considered only as a potential
guide for future search streams on IC and the firm. In that sense, future researchers could
benefit from some of the interesting conclusions and works analyzed in order to continue
with future research, future research collaboration programs, and so on.

References
Adler, P.S. and Kwon, S.W. (2002), “Social capital: prospects for a new concept”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 17-40.
Ayranci, E. and Colakoglu, N. (2014), “Emotional intelligence of top managers and their assessment of
intellectual capital”, Qualitative and Quantitative, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 2023-2052.
Barney, J. (1991), “Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 99-120.
Becker, G.S. (1964), Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis, with Special Reference to
Education, Columbia University Press, New York, NY and London.
Bellora, L. and Guenther, T. (2013), “Drivers of innovation capital disclosure in intellectual capital
statements: evidence from Europe”, The British Accounting Review, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 255-270.
Bontis, N. (1996), “There’s a price on your head: managing intellectual capital strategically”, Business
Quarterly, Vol. 60 No. 4, pp. 40-78.
JIC Bontis, N. (1998), “Intellectual capital: an exploratory study that develops measures and models”,
20,4 Management Decision, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 63-76.
Bontis, N. (2001), “Assessing knowledge assets: a review of the models used to measure intellectual
capital”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 41-60.
Bontis, N. (2003), “Intellectual capital disclosure in Canadian corporations”, Journal of Human Resource
Costing and Accounting, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 9-20.
574 Bontis, N. (2004), “National intellectual index: a United Nations initiative for the Arab region”, Journal
of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 13-39.
Bontis, N., Crossan, M. and Hulland, J. (2002), “Managing an organizational learning system by aligning
stocks and flows”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 427-469.
Bontis, N., Dragonetti, N., Jacobsen, K. and Roos, G. (1999), “The knowledge toolbox: a review of the
tools available to measure and manage intangible resources”, European Management Journal,
Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 391-402.
Brennan, N. and Connell, B. (2000), “Intellectual capital: current issues and policy implications”, Journal
of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 206-240.
Brooking, A. (1996), Intellectual Capital: Core Asset for the Third Millenium Enterprise, International
Thomson Business Press, London.
Buenechea-Elberdin, M. (2017), “Structured literature review about intellectual capital and innovation”,
Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 262-285.
Bueno, E. (1998), “El Capital Intangible como clave estratégica en la competencia actual”, Boletín de
Estudios Económicos, Vol. 53 No. 164, pp. 207-229.
Bukh, P., Nielsen, C., Gormsen, P. and Mouritsen, J. (2005), “Disclosure information on intellectual
capital in Danish IPO prospectuses”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 18
No. 6, pp. 713-732.
Burt, R. (1992), Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Cabello-Medina, C., Carmona-Lavado, A., Pérez-Luño, A. and Cuevas-Rodríguez, G. (2011), “Do best and
worst innovation performance companies differ in terms of intellectual capital, knowledge and
radicalness?”, African Journal of Business Management, Vol. 5 No. 28, pp. 11450-11468.
Cabrilo, S., Uzelac, Z. and Cosic, I. (2009), “Researching indicators of organizational intellectual capital
in Serbia”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 573-587.
Carayannis, E., Del Giudice, M. and Della Peruta, M. (2014), “Managing the intellectual capital within
government-university-industry R&D partnerships: a framework for the engineering research
centers”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 611-630.
Cerbioni, F. and Parbonetti, A. (2007), “Exploring the effects of corporate governance on intellectual
capital disclosure: an analysis of European biotechnology companies”, European Accounting
Review, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 791-826.
CIC (2003), “Modelo Intellectus: Medición y Gestión del Capital Intelectual”, CIC-IADE, Madrid.
Chiucchi, M. and Dumay, J. (2015), “Un-locking intellectual capital”, Journal of Intellectual Capital,
Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 305-330.
Clearly, P. and Quinn, M. (2016), “Intellectual capital and business performance: an exploratory study
of the impact of cloud-based accounting and finance infrastructure”, Journal of Intellectual
Capital, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 255-278.
Conner, K. and Prahalad, C. (1996), “A resource-based theory of the firm: knowledge versus
opportunism”, Organization Studies, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 477-501.
Dean, A. and Kretschmer, M. (2007), “Can ideas be capital? Factors of production in the post-industrial
economy: a review and critique”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 573-594.
Díez-Vial, I. and Montoro-Sánchez, M. (2017), “Research evolution in science parks and incubators:
foundations and new trends”, Scientometrics, Vol. 110 No. 3, pp. 1243-1272.
Drucker, P.F. (1993), “The rise of the knowledge society”, The Wilson Quarterly, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 52-72.
Dumay, J. and Cai, L. (2015), “Using content analysis as a research methodology for investigating Intellectual
intellectual capital disclosure: a critique”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 121-155. capital and the
Dumay, J., Guthrie, J. and Puntillo, P. (2015), “IC and the public sector: a structured literature review”, firm
Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 267-284.
Durand, R., Grant, R. and Madsen, T. (2017), “The expanding domain of strategic management
research and the quest for integration”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 4-16.
Edvinsson, L. (1997), “Developing intellectual capital at Skandia”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 30 No. 3, 575
pp. 366-373.
Edvinsson, L. and Sullivan, P. (1996), “Developing a model for managing intellectual capital”, European
Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 356-364.
Edvinsson, L. and Malone, M. (1997), Intellectual Capital. Realizing your Company’s True Value by
Finding its Hidden Brainpower, Harper Collins Publishers, New York, NY.
Edvinsson, L. and Malone, M. (1999), “El Capital Intelectual. Cómo Identificar y Calcular el Valor de los
Recursos Intangibles de su Empresa”, Gestión 2000, Barcelona.
Galbraith, J.K. (1969), “The consequences of technology”, Journal of Accountancy, Vol. 127 No. 6,
pp. 44-56.
García-Meca, E., Parra, I., Larrán, M. and Martínez, I. (2005), “The explanatory factors of intellectual
capital disclosure to financial analyst”, European Accounting Review, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 63-94.
Garfield, E. (1964), “Science citation index-a new dimension in indexing”, Science, Vol. 144 No. 3619,
pp. 649-654.
Goebel, K. (2015), “Is the literature on content analysis of intellectual capital reporting heading towards
a dead end?”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 681-699.
Grant, R. (1996), “Towards a knowledge-based theory of the firm”, Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 17 No. S2, pp. 109-122.
Hatch, N. and Dyer, J. (2004), “Human capital and learning as a source of sustainable competitive
advantage”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 25 No. 12, pp. 1155-1178.
Hayton, J. (2005), “Competing in the new economy: the effects of intellectual capital on corporate
entrepreneurship in high-technology new ventures”, R&D Management, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 137-155.
Healy, P.M. and Palepu, K.G. (2001), “Information asymmetry, corporate disclosure, and the capital
markets: a review of the empirical disclosure literature”, Journal of Accounting and Economics,
Vol. 31 Nos 1/3, pp. 405-440.
Hitt, M., Bierman, L., Shimizu, K. and Kochhar, R. (2001), “Direct and moderating effects of human
capital on strategy and performance in professional service firms: a resource-based perspective”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 13-28.
Hsu, I. and Sabherwal, R. (2011), “From intellectual capital to firm performance: the mediating role
of knowledge capabilities”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 58 No. 4,
pp. 626-642.
Huselid, M. (1995), “The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity and
corporate financial performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 635-672.
Inkinen, H. (2015), “Review of empirical research on intellectual capital and firm performance”, Journal
of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 518-565.
Jones, O. and Gatrell, C. (2014), “Editorial statement”, International Journal of Management Reviews,
Vol. 16 No. 1, p. 1, available at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ijmr.12027
Kamath, G. (2008), “Intellectual capital and corporate performance in Indian pharmaceutical industry”,
Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 684-704.
Kaplan, R. and Norton, D. (1992), “The balanced scorecard: measures that drive performance”, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 70 No. 1, pp. 71-79.
Kessler, M.M. (1963), “Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers”, American Documentation,
Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 10-25.
JIC Kim, T., Yoo, J. and Lee, G. (2011), “The HOINCAP scale: measuring intellectual capital in the hotel
20,4 industry”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 31 No. 13, pp. 2243-2272.
Kogut, B. and Zander, U. (1992), “Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of
technology”, Organization Science, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 383-397.
Kogut, B. and Zander, U. (1996), “What firms do? Coordination, identity and learning”, Organization
Science, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 502-518.
576 Lee, S. (2010), “Using fuzzy AHP to develop intellectual capital evaluation model for assessing their
performance contribution in a university”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 37 No. 7,
pp. 4941-4947.
Lev, B. (1997), “The old rules no longer apply: intellectual capital measurement”, Forbes Magazine,
Vol. 72 No. 13, pp. 34-38.
Lev, B. (2001), Intangibles: Management, Measurement and Reporting, Brookings Institution Press,
Washington, DC.
Low, M., Samkin, G. and Li, Y. (2015), “Voluntary reporting of intellectual capital. Comparing the
quality of disclosures from New Zealand, Australian and United Kingdom universities”, Journal
of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 779-808.
Maditinos, D., Chatzoudes, D., Tsairidis, C. and Theriou, T. (2011), “The impact of intellectual capital on
firms’ market value and financial performance”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 12 No. 1,
pp. 132-151.
Marr, B. and Chatzkel, J. (2004), “Intellectual capital at the crossroads: managing and reporting of IC”,
Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 224-229.
Martín-de Castro, G. (2014), “Intellectual capital and the firm: some remaining questions and
prospects”, Knowledge Management, Research and Practice, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 239-245.
Martín-de Castro, G., Delgado-Verde, M., Navas-López, J. and López-Sáez, P. (2011), “Towards an
intellectual capital-based view of the firm: origins and nature”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 98
No. 4, pp. 649-662.
Matricano, D. (2016), “The impact of intellectual capital on start-up expectations”, Journal of Intellectual
Capital, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 654-674.
Mavridis, D. (2004), “The intellectual capital performance of the Japanese banking sector”, Journal of
Intellectual Capital, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 92-115.
Melloni, G. (2015), “Intellectual capital disclosure in integrated reporting: an impression management
analysis”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 661-680.
Meyer, M., Grant, K., Morlacchi, P. and Weckowska, D. (2014), “Triple helix indicators as an emergent
area of enquiry: a bibliometric perspective”, Scientometrics, Vol. 99 No. 1, pp. 151-174.
Moon, Y.J. and Kym, H.G. (2006), “A model for the value of intellectual capital”, Canadian Journal of
Administrative Sciences, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 253-269.
Morris, S. and Snell, S. (2011), “Intellectual capital configurations and organizational capability: an
empirical examination of human resource subunits in the multinational enterprise”, Journal of
International Business Studies, Vol. 42 No. 6, pp. 805-827.
Mouritsen, J. (2006), “Problematising intellectual capital research: ostensive versus performative IC”,
Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 820-841.
Mouritsen, J., Larsen, H. and Bukh, P. (2001), “Intellectual capital and the capable firm: narrating,
visualising and numbering for managing knowledge”, Accounting, Organizations and Society,
Vol. 26 Nos 7/8, pp. 735-762.
Murray, A., Papa, A., Cuozzo, B. and Russo, G. (2016), “Evaluating the innovation of the internet of
things: empirical evidence from the intellectual capital assessment”, Business Process
Management Journal, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 341-356.
Nahapiet, J. and Ghoshal, S. (1998), “Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational
advantage”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 242-266.
Newbert, S. (2007), “Empirical research on the resource-based view of the firm: an assessment and Intellectual
suggestions for future research”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 121-146. capital and the
Nonaka, I. (1991), “The knowledge-creating company”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 69 No. 6, pp. 96-104. firm
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge Creating Company, Oxford University Press,
New York, NY.
Ott, C., Schmidt, U. and Guenther, T. (2014), “Information dissemination on intellectual capital in
mergers and acquisitions: purchase of price allocations, press releases and business press”, 577
Accounting and Business Research, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 280-314.
Pasamar, S., López-Cabrales, A. and Valle-Cabrera, R. (2015), “Ambidexterity and intellectual capital
architectures for developing dynamic capabilities: towards a research agenda”, European
Journal of International Management, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 74-87.
Pedro, E., Leitão, J. and Alves, H. (2018), “Back to the future of intellectual capital research: a systematic
literature review”, Management Decision, Vol. 56 No. 11, pp. 2502-2583.
Pike, S., Göran, R. and Marr, B. (2005), “Strategic management of intangible asset and value drivers in
R&D organizations”, R&D Management, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 111-124.
Pilkington, A. and Chai, K.-H. (2008), “Research themes, concepts and relationships: a study of
International Journal of Service Industry Management (1990–2005)”, International Journal of
Service Industry Management, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 83-110.
Ramos-Rodríguez, A. and Ruíz-Navarro, J. (2004), “Changes in the intellectual structure of strategic
management research: a bibliometric study of the strategic management journal 1980–2000”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 25 No. 10, pp. 981-1004.
Reed, R., Lubatkin, R.J. and Srinivasan, N. (2006), “Proposing and testing an intellectual capital-based
view of the firm”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 867-893.
Ronda-Pupo, G. and Guerras-Martín, L. (2010), “Dynamics of the scientific community network within
the strategic management field through the Strategic Management Journal 1980–2009: the role
of cooperation”, Scientometrics, Vol. 85 No. 3, pp. 821-848.
Roos, G. and Roos, J. (1997), “Measuring your company’s intellectual performance”, Long Range
Planning, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 413-426.
Roos, J. (1998), “Exploring the concept of intellectual capital”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 31 No. 1,
pp. 150-153.
Saint-Onge, H. (1996), “Tacit knowledge: the key to the strategic alignment of intellectual capital”,
Strategy and Leadership, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 10-16.
Salton, G. and McGill, M.J. (1983), Introduction to Modern Information Retrieval, McGraw-Hill.
Secundo, G., Massaro, M., Dumay, J. and Bagnoli, C. (2018), “Intellectual capital management in the
fourth stage of IC research: a critical case study in university settings”, Journal of Intellectual
Capital, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 157-177.
Serenko, A. and Bontis, N. (2004), “Meta-review of knowledge management and intellectual capital
literature”, Working Paper No. 112, Management of Innovation and New Technology Research
Centre, McMaster University, Hamilton, June.
Serenko, A. and Bontis, N. (2013), “The intellectual core and impact of the knowledge management
academic discipline”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 137-155.
Serenko, A., Bontis, N., Booker, L., Sadeddin, K. and Hardie, T. (2010), “A scientometric analysis of
knowledge management and intellectual capital academic literature (1994–2008)”, Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 3-23.
Shih, K., Lin, C. and Lin, B. (2011), “Assessing the quality gap of intellectual capital in banks”, Total
Quality Management and Business Excellence, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 289-303.
Solitander, M. and Tidström, A. (2010), “Competitive flows of intellectual capital in value creating
networks”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 23-38.
JIC Spanish Foro Intellect (1998), “Medición del Capital Intelectual. Modelo Intelect”, I.U. Euroforum
20,4 Escorial, Madrid.
Spender, J. and Grant, R.M. (1996), “Knowledge and the firm: overview”, Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 17 No. S2, pp. 5-9.
Stewart, T.A. (1991), “Brainpower: how intellectual capital becoming America’s most valuable asset”,
Fortune, Vol. 2, June, pp. 44-60.
578 Stewart, T.A. (1996), Intellectual Capital: The New Wealth of Organization, Doubleday, New York, NY.
Su, E. and Carney, M. (2013), “Can China’s family firms create intellectual capital?”, Asia Pacific Journal
of Management, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 657-675.
Subramaniam, M. and Youndt, M.A. (2005), “The influence of intellectual capital on the types of
innovative capabilities”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 450-463.
Sveiby, K. (1997), The New Organizational Wealth: Managing and Measuring Knowledge Based Assets,
Berrett Koehler, San Francisco, CA.
Teece, D. (1998), “Capturing value from knowledge assets: the new economy, markets for know-how,
and intangible assets”, California Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 55-79.
Teece, D.J. (2000), Managing Intellectual Capital, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Teece, D., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997), “Dynamic capabilities and strategic management”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 509-533.
Teo, S.T., Reed, K.K. and Ly, K. (2014), “Human resource involvement in developing intellectual
capital”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 34 No. 15, pp. 1219-1233.
Ulrich, D. (1998), “Intellectual capital ¼ competence x commitment”, Sloan Management Review,
Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 15-26.
Vogel, R. and Güttel, W. (2013), “The dynamic capability view in strategic management: a bibiometric
review”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 426-446.
Wang, W., Lu, W. and Wang, Y. (2013), “The relationship between bank performance and intellectual
capital in East Asia”, Quality and Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Vol. 47 No. 2,
pp. 1041-1062.
Whittington, R. (1996), “Strategy as practice”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 731-735.
Winter, S. and Nelson, R. (1982), An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign’s Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical Research Reference in
Entrepreneurship, Cambridge, MA.
Wu, W., Chang, M. and Chen, C. (2008), “Promoting innovation through the accumulation of intellectual
capital, social capital, and entrepreneurial orientation”, R&D Management, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 265-277.
Youndt, M. and Snell, S. (2004), “Human resource configurations, intellectual capital, and
organizational performance”, Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 337-360.
Youndt, M.A., Subramaniam, M. and Snell, S.A. (2004), “Intellectual capital profiles: an examination of
investments and returns”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 335-361.
Zupic, I. and Čater, T. (2015), “Bibliometric methods in management and organization”, Organizational
Research Methods, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 429-472.

Further reading
Ambrosini, V. and Bowman, C. (2009), “What are dynamic capabilities and are they a useful construct in
strategic management?”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 29-49.
Andrews, K. (1971), The Concept of Corporate Strategy, McGraw Hill, New York, NY.
Baer, M. and Shaw, J. (2017), “From the editors: falling in love again with what we do: academic
craftsmanship in the management sciences”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 60 No. 4,
pp. 1213-1217.
Barney, J. (1986), “Strategic factor markets: expectations, luck, and business strategy”, Management Intellectual
Science, Vol. 32 No. 10, pp. 1231-1241. capital and the
Barney, J., Ketchen, D. and Wright, M. (2011), “The future of resource-based view. Revitalization or firm
decline?”, Journal of Management, Vol. 37 No. 5, pp. 1299-1315.
Boyd, B., Gove, S. and Hitt, M. (2005), “Construct measurement in strategic management research:
illusion or reality?”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 239-257.
Caves, R. and Porter, M. (1977), “From entry barriers to mobility barriers: conjectural decisions and 579
contrived deterrence to new competition”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 91 No. 2, pp. 241-261.
Chang, W. and Hsich, J. (2011), “Intellectual capital and value creation – is innovation capital a missing
link?”, International Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 3-12.
Chesbrough, H. (2003), Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from
Technology, Harvard University School Press, Boston, MA.
Cyer, R. and March, J. (1963), A Behavioural Theory of the Firm, Prentice-Hall, Englewood, CO.
Dyer, J. and Hatch, N. (2004), “Human capital and learning as source of sustainable competitive
advantage”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 25 No. 12, pp. 1155-1178.
Editor’s Comments (2010), “Construct clarity in theories of management and organization”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 346-357.
Goh, P. (2005), “Intellectual capital performance of commercial banks in Malaysia”, Journal of
Intellectual Capital, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 385-396.
Grant, R. (1991), “The resource-based theory of competitive advantage”, California Management
Review, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 114-135.
Guerras-Martín, L., Madhok, A. and Montoro-Sánchez, M. (2014), “The evolution of strategic
management research: recent trends and current directions”, Business Research Quarterly,
Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 69-76.
Hall, R. (1993), “A framework linking resources and capabilities to sustainable competitive advantage”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 13 No. 8, pp. 135-144.
Hart, S. (1995), “A natural resource-based view of the firm”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20
No. 4, pp. 986-1014.
Jensen, M. and Meckling, W. (1976), “The theory of the firm: managerial behaviour, agency cost and
ownership structure”, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 305-360.
Lee, J., Swink, M. and Pandejpong, T. (2011), “The roles of worker expertise, information sharing
quality, and phychological safety in manufacturing process innovation: an intellectual capital
perspective”, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 556-570.
McCorquodale, K. and Meehl, P. (1948), “On a distinction between hypothetical constructs and
intervening variables”, Psychological Review, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 95-107.
Markides, C. (1999), “Six principles of breakthrough strategy”, Business Strategy Review, Vol. 10 No. 2,
pp. 1-20.
Martín-de Castro, G., López-Sáez, P. and Navas-López, J. (2008), “Processes of knowledge creation in
knowledge-intensive firms: empirical evidence from Boston’s Route 128 and Spain”,
Technovation, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 222-230.
Nag, R., Hambrick, D. and Chen, M. (2007), “What is strategic management, really? Inductive derivation
of a consensus definition of the field”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 28 No. 9, pp. 935-955.
Newbert, S. (2008), “Value, rareness, competitive advantage and performance: a conceptual-level
empirical investigation of the resource-based view of the firm”, Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 29 No. 7, pp. 745-768.
Peteraf, M. (1993), “The cornerstones of competitive advantage: a resource-based view”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 179-191.
Powell, T., Lovallo, D. and Fox, C. (2011), “Behavioral strategy”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 32
No. 13, pp. 1369-1386.
JIC Prahalad, C. and Hamel, G. (1990), “The core competence of the corporation”, Harvard Business Review,
20,4 Vol. 68 No. 3, pp. 79-91.
Quinn, J. (1980), Strategies for Change: Logical Incrementalism, Richard D. Irwin, Homewood.
Ronda-Pupo, G. and Guerras-Martín, L.A. (2012), “Dynamics of the evolution of the strategy concept
1962–2008: a co-word analysis”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 162-188.
Roodposhti, F., Zahra, A. and Rajaei, E. (2011), “The effect of any relation between intellectual capital
580 based on financial patterns and economic value added for measuring business of accepted
companies in Iranian stock exchange organization”, African Journal of Business Management,
Vol. 5 No. 27, pp. 11022-11033.
Roos, G., Brainbridge, A. and Jacobsen, K. (2001), “Intellectual capital analysis as a strategic tool”,
Strategy and Leadership, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 21-26.
Small, H.G. (1973), “Co-citation in the scientific literature: a new measure of the relationship between two
documents”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 265-269.
Spender, J. (1996), “Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 17, pp. 45-62.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984), “A resource-based view of the firm”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 5 No. 2,
pp. 171-180.

Corresponding author
Gregorio Martín-de Castro can be contacted at: gregorio.martin@ccee.ucm.es

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com