29777_intellectual_capital_eu

The intellectual
capital of the
European Union
The intellectual
capital of the
European Union
Measuring the Lisbon agenda
Version 2004
Centre for Research in Intellectual Capital
INHOLLAND University of professional education Contact:
Contents
Contents
Executive summary
Introduction
Indicators for intellectual capital in the EU Value of intellectual capital in the EU
Value of intellectual capital investments Growth in Intellectual Capital (1999-2001)
References
Appendix
Executive summary
Executive summary
Limitations
Value of intellectual capital
Before drawing any conclusion about the intellectual capital In general we can conclude that the Nordic countries (IC) of the EU, we would like to indicate the limitations of our (Sweden, Denmark and Finland) perform considerably better research. First, the limitation of the methodology of multi- than the others. Figure 1 shows that the value of their dimensional value measurement as described in Appendix 2.
intellectual capital assets is substantially higher than the value Second limitation was the limited availability of data. Our aim of a large group of followers (Belgium, The Netherlands, was to monitor the progress of the Lisbon Agenda of March Luxemburg, Germany, France, Austria, United Kingdom and 2000. The data available, however, on average does not go Ireland). Finally a group of laggards (Italy, Spain, Greece and further than 2001. This means that it is impossible to identify Portugal) follows at considerable distance. This outcome is effects of Lisbon policy measures. Therefore this report must consistent with comparable research. For example, the top 3 be seen as a base measurement for monitoring the Lisbon of most competitive European countries in the ranking of the Agenda. We will repeat our research in two years time to World Economic Forum in 2004 is Finland, Sweden and Noticeable is that these three groups are geographically Lisbon Agenda
divided. The leading group consists of northern European On 23-24 March 2000, the European Council formulated a countries (>54˚ latitude), the group of followers consists of new strategic goal for the EU in order to strengthen its middle European countries (45˚-54˚ latitude). The laggards knowledge-based economy. The main goal was “to become are all southern European countries (<45˚ latitude). the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy A possible cultural explanation for this could be that the in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with Nordic countries throughout history have developed an more and better jobs and greater social cohesion.” attitude of looking at the future. In order to survive the long and severe winters they always had to plan their resources In order to reach this goal, the European Council defined a set of supportive goals and measures. This so called ‘Lisbon Agenda’ is an indication of the kind of intellectual capital the Our main findings with regard to the value of the intellectual EU wishes to create in order to reach its strategic goal. capital of the EU-15 can be summarized as follows: At the Lisbon meeting in March 2000, the European Council invited the Commission “to draw up an annual synthesis As expected there is a strong and significant correlation report on progress on the basis of structural indicators” between human capital investments and human capital (European Parliament, 2000). These 14 structural assets (0.470) and also between structural capital indicators1 are presented and published every spring investments and structural capital assets (0.686). meeting of the European Council and are the basis of So, countries that have a high value of intellectual measuring progress of the Lisbon Agenda. Another example capital investments also have a high value of intellectual of measuring progress based on these structural indicators is of course the recent publication “Facing the Challenge” by 2. Human capital and structural capital “go together” the High Level Group chaired by Wim Kok (High Level Leading countries (SE, DK, FI) have considerably higher value of both human capital and structural capital.
This report goes further and translates the Lisbon Agenda Laggards (ES, PT, EL, IT) have considerably lower value into 38 indicators from an intellectual capital perspective.
of human capital and structural capital. This supports This enables us to measure the value the intellectual capital the idea that human capital and structural capital are of the EU ánd the progress of the Lisbon Agenda.
interdependent and mutual enhancing factors.
See: http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/eurostat/structuralindicators They “go together” in the creation of intellectual capital.
Growth over time (1999-2001)
This is what Edvinsson (2002) calls the multiplier effect.
Comparison of the value of intellectual capital over time This is further supported by a strong and significant (1999 and 2001) shows growth for almost all countries from correlation (0.806) between human capital assets (HCA) all perspectives (investments, assets, effects). Our main and structural capital assets (SCA). However, we did not find a significant correlation between relational capital assets (RCA) and other types of intellectual capital.
1. Relative position of Germany will improve If it is true that there is a time lag between the investments in IC and the value of IC assets, the relative position of Value of Intellectual capital of EU countries
countries like Ireland, the UK and Finland will worsen. At the (Assets)
same time the relative position of Germany will improve.
Noticeable is that the value of IC assets increased in all EU countries. This supports the idea that the knowledge economy is growing. At the other hand we see that the value of IC assets in the USA decreases, which means that the EU is catching up with the USA, although it is still far behind.
Europe as a whole became better in making its intangibles productive. Moreover, if we calculate the ratio between assets and effects, we see that the EU is better in leveraging intellectual capital than the USA. In the USA, one value unit of intellectual capital assets leads to 0.93 units of IC effects, while in Europe one unit of IC assets leads to 1.10 units of IC effects. This supports the idea that high values of IC assets are no guarantee for high intellectual However, if we compare the EU as a whole with the USA and Japan we see that the value of its intellectual capital 3. High value of IC is no guarantee for high productivity assets is considerably lower than the USA and slightly Measurement of the extent to which intangibles are higher than Japan. This means that Europe, in 2001, made productive reveal that high values of intellectual still had a long way to go. In order to investigate the impact capital assets are no guarantee for high intellectual of the Lisbon Agenda this research will be repeated in the productivity. However, low values of intellectual capital assets do seem to be a guarantee for low intellectual productivity. It seems that intellectual capital Acknowledgement
investments and assets are necessary, but not sufficient The authors would like to thank Jera Keizer and Renze to make intellectual capital productive. Kolster for their valuable help in collecting the necessary Introduction
Introduction
More and more we hear people say that we have entered a This shift in significance from tangible to intangible factors new economy, information economy, a network society, of production however, did not lead to changes in the post-industrial society, knowledge-based society, etc.
traditional accounting and measurement systems. Whatever their names and differences, there is one major The result is that traditional financial accounting systems similarity between all these new kind of economies: and macro-economic statistics have lost relevance. The competitive advantage within these new economies The decreasing relevance of traditional measurements can has shifted from material and financial assets to intangible easily be illustrated by the unit price per lbs of some and non-financial assets; to intellectual capital (IC). traditional industrial products compared with the unit price The European Union is aware of this shift and is of some knowledge-based products (table 1).
implementing an ambitious program to make the European economy the most dynamic and competitive knowledge- More and more ‘products’ do not have any weight at all. “An ever increasing share of GDP resides in economic commodities that have little or no physical manifestations” In this report we give an introduction to the concept of the (Youngman, 2003: p.7). The value of a Pentium Processor, intellectual capital of nations and apply it to the European or Viagra is not in the physical weight of the product itself Union. How do the countries of the European Union perform (see table 1). It is not the material substance customers are from an intellectual capital perspective? To answer this paying for. The real value lies in the knowledge and skills of question we have developed an IC Monitor for 15 European the people who made the products, and the marketing countries that uses indicators to measure the value of power of the companies to sell the products. These are all intellectual capital. Thus we provide insight into the value of the intellectual capital of these countries in relationship to the goals set by the European Council on 23-24 March 2000 With the introduction of the Fortune 500 largest companies in 2001, Thomas Stewart wrote “In the pages of Fortune that follow are thousands upon thousands of statistics that reveal The growing importance of intangibles
very little that’s meaningful about corporations they The past decades our production process has changed.
purportedly describe” (Stewart, 2001: p.184). The General Traditional factors of production, like natural resources, Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) generally do an labor and capital have lost significance. At the same time unacceptable job of accounting for the principal activities of the importance of intangible inputs, like information and Information Age companies. In today’s economy indicators like revenues, profits and assets only tell a minor part of the story.
Price (US$)
Weight (lbs*)
Unit $ price per lbs
The real wealth of organizations has to be sought in the knowledge-based economy (OECD, 2001). Moreover, the people, their knowledge and skills, internal processes and the OECD-conference on Intangibles in June 1999 in The Hague company’s reputation. That is why Fortune asked Baruch Lev, (EZ, 1999) and the Lisbon Agenda of March 2000 (European Professor of accounting at the Stern Business School at Parliament, 2000), initiated several projects, aiming at New York University, to make an alternative ranking of the developing indicators for the knowledge-based economy smartest US companies by calculating their knowledge capital, (e.g. Brusoni, et al., 2002, Eustace, 2003). How to get a in addition to the traditional ranking of the 500 largest better understanding of the new wealth of nations? Measuring Intellectual Capital
While the top 10 of the traditional ranking is dominated by Our main sources of competitive advantage have become industrial companies, like General Motors, Ford, Daimler intangible. What we need is a more reliable guide that Chrysler, Toyota, Mitsubishi, BP and Shell, the alternative provides better insight into the value of these intangible ranking by Lev provides a more balanced view of traditional assets and their contribution to economic development and and information age companies (see table 2).
growth. However, contrary to the 500-year old double-entry bookkeeping system, communicating and reporting about These developments have not been limited to firm level intangibles, or intellectual capital, does not have a list of only. We can see a growing discrepancy on an aggregate clear defined terms or models. Moreover, even the term national level too. Like the Fortune 500 ranking, national intellectual capital counts for numerous definitions and accounts reveal only very little that is meaningful to get interpretations. However, evaluating the state of the field, insight into the drivers of national wealth. More and more, we recognize an emerging standard (Sveiby, 1998, Stam, statistical offices are faced with the problem of mapping 1999, Bontis, 2002, Andriessen, 2004), based on the and measuring the growth of today’s economy. Indicative for groundbreaking work of people like Karl-Erik Sveiby this trend is the OECD Science, Technology and Industry (Sveiby, 1997), Leif Edvinsson (Edvinsson en Malone, 1997, Scoreboard, which brings together internationally Edvinsson, 2002), Thomas Stewart (Stewart, 1997, Stewart, comparable data in order to analyze trends in the 2002), and Göran Roos (Roos et. al., 1997). Knowledge Capital (mio US$)
The roots of today’s intellectual capital movement lies in the Human Resources: This first class represents mid 1980s in the work of Karl-Erik Sveiby (Sullivan, 2000, anything related to the people within the organization, Edvinsson, 2002). As stated above intellectual capital the employees, their tacit knowledge, skills, experience counts for numerous interpretations and definitions.
However, after more than a decade of intangibles, we see Organizational Resources: This second class represents that definitions are converging. Core-elements within these the ‘tangible’ intangibles. Everything of value that stays behind, after the employees have left the organization, Intellectual capital is an intangible organizational like codified knowledge, procedures, processes, Competitive advantage is based on intellectual capital Relational Resources: This third class represents the Organizational value and value creation is the result of relationship with customers, suppliers and other external stakeholders. The value of customer capital is mainly determined by the extent to which an organization is Based on the above we would define intellectual capital as able to maintain confidence in its reputation. all intangible resources that are available to an organization, Although the terminology that is used by different academics that give a relative advantage, and which in combination are and practitioners differs, this taxonomy of three could be able to produce future benefits.
the main element of an emerging standard. More and more, this classification is used as a starting point for reporting and In order to measure and manage intellectual capital, it is communicating about intellectual capital. important to be more precise about the different components.
One of the main merits of the intellectual capital movement is Intellectual Capital Monitor
the development of a so-called taxonomy, a branch of various Although the intellectual capital is unique and can never be classes of intellectual capital and their relationships.
compared objectively, we can improve comparability by Comparison of several intellectual capital models (table 3) using the same conceptual models. Moreover, we think that shows us that many of them are based on a more or less the above taxonomy of three has proven to be a sound same classification (Stam, 1999, Stam, 2001).
basis for measuring and comparing intellectual capital on All three models are based on a taxonomy of three2. The logic of these models is that intellectual capital is the Therefore the starting point of our model is Bontis’ proposed product of interaction of these three different classes of conceptualization (Bontis, 2002) of intellectual capital, intangibles: human resources, organizational resources and in which he distinguishes between human capital, structural capital and relational capital. Based on this taxonomy of Comparison of intellectual capital models Sveiby was probably the first to use this family of three in The New Annual Report, 1988. three we developed the Intellectual Capital Monitor for the An intellectual capital of nations report uses a system of variables (indicators) that helps to uncover and manage the invisible wealth and gives insight into the hidden value of a Within this monitor we have added a second layer of classification. Each of the three classes of intellectual capital is being monitored from three different perspectives in order The concept of intellectual capital can be translated to to stress the importance and differences between past, macro-economic level very easily, because “the stories of our societies and of our nations are mirrors of ourselves and 1. Assets (present) This perspective gives an indication of our organizations" (Edvinsson, 2002). The main difference the present power of an organization. It provides an of course is its level of application. Debra Amidon was overview of the current main assets.
among the first to recognize the possibilities of applying 2. Investments (future) This perspective gives insight into intellectual capital on a macro-economic level (Amidon, the future power of an organization/nation. To maintain 2001). The most rigorous work in this field until now is done or strengthen its present power, organizations should by Nick Bontis. In his work he defines IC of Nations as “the hidden values of individuals, enterprises, institutions, 3. Effects (past) This perspective shows the extent to communities and regions that are the current and potential which the organization has made its intangibles sources for wealth creation” (Bontis, 2004: p.4). The windows and perspectives are combined in a 3 by The main motivation for measuring the intellectual wealth of 3 matrix (see table 4). Implementation of this monitor means a nation is to get insight into the relative advantage of filling the fields with appropriate performance indicators. countries. This insight could help to develop policy in order The power of this format appeared to be its simplicity, which to give direction to future economic developments.
makes it easy to implement, communicate and understand.
Examples of earlier IC of Nations reports are the IC report of the State of Israel (Pasher, 1999), National IC Index A well-defined Intellectual Capital Monitor consists of a (Bontis, 2004), IC report of Croatia (2002), and several IC combination of indicators from all three classes and all three reports in The Netherlands (EZ, 2000; EZ, 2002) Intellectual Capital of Nations
Based on the international developments in this field and our Intellectual Capital of Nations is a concept that applies the own interpretation of intellectual capital, we define the IC of principles of intellectual capital measurement and Nations as all intangible resources available to a country or management on a macro-economic level, in such a way that region, that give relative advantage, and which in it helps to give direction to future economic developments.
combination are able to produce future benefits.
Human capital
Structural capital
Relational capital
Investments
Effects can be further divided into output, outcome and impact. See for example the Intellectual Capital Report 2003 of the Swedish Center forMolecular Medicine For a more detailed comparison of the reports of Australia, Israel, New Zealand and The Netherlands see: Cees Schouten, De KenniseconomieGekend, Amsterdam, 2004 For the measurement and communication of the IC of Preparing the transition to a competitive, dynamic and Nations, we can use the same model as on a firm level.
However, to make it applicable on a national level, Modernizing the European social model by investing in the meaning of the classes of intangibles are translated people and building an active welfare state; Sustaining the healthy economic outlook and favourable Human Capital. This first class represents anything growth prospects by applying an appropriate macro- related to people: knowledge, education and competencies of individuals in realizing national tasks and goals. Education is ‘the basic building block of The Lisbon Agenda gives an indication of the kind of intellectual capital the EU wishes to create in order to Structural Capital. The second class of intangibles on a become competitive and dynamic. In order to be able to macro-economic level represents the ‘non-human translate this strategy into indicators, we should take a storehouses of knowledge, which are embedded in its closer look at the underlying goals and measures.
technological, information and communications systems as represented by its hardware, software, databases, The first goal is to ensure that businesses and citizens laboratories and organizational structures’ (Bontis, 2004: have access to a world-class communications infrastructure (structural capital) and that they possess Relational Capital. This third class of intangibles assesses the intraorganizational relationships and 2. Establishing a European Area of Research and linkages and the extent to which organizations are able to capitalize on cooperative and coordinating Second goal is to boost the amount of research taking place within the EU thereby creating explicit knowledge As we all know, measures in itself do not say much. It is (structural capital) and implicit knowledge (human the comparison of measures of one country against another, capital). At the European Council meeting in Barcelona or of one period against another that give meaning to the in 2002 it was agreed that, in order to close the gap figures. Although the intellectual capital is unique and can between the EU and its competitors, overall spending on never be compared objectively, we can improve R&D and innovation should be increased with the aim of comparability by using the same conceptual models. approaching 3% of GDP by 2010. Two-thirds of this new We think the IC Monitor, based on the taxonomy of three investment should come from the private sector. In has proven to be a sound basis for measuring intellectual addition the EU wants to integrate the research activities capital on both firm and national level.
between countries thereby creating EU relational capital.
3. Creating a friendly environment for starting up and Indicators for intellectual capital in the EU
developing innovative businesses, especially Small and On 23-24 March 2000, the European Council held a special meeting to agree a new strategic goal for the EU in order to This includes removing red tape, lowering the costs of strengthen its knowledge-based economy. The goal was set doing business and improving the access to venture “to become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge- capital. This indicates the creation of structural capital. based economy in the world, capable of sustainable 4. Economic reforms for a complete and fully operational economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion” (European Parliament, 2000). To achieve The EU is working on the removal of barriers to trade, this goal an overall strategy was formulated, aiming at: the liberalization in the areas of gas, electricity, postal services and transport and the harmonization of promotes social inclusion and gender equality, and regulations. Most of these measures concern increasing provides quality health services. So according to the EU, the structural capital of the EU as a whole. Therefore we its social system can be an important part of the did not select any country indicators, except for a score of each country on implementing EU directives. The more harmonized the laws within the EU, the easier Striking is that the Lisbon Agenda, from an intellectual capital perspective, focuses on structural capital in the first 5. Efficient and integrated financial markets place, followed by human capital. Only goal number 2 aims The EU also aims for the integration of the financial at creating relational capital (intra-organizational markets. In addition the EU wants to increase the relationships and linkages). This dominant focus on efficiency of the risk capital markets. This is a form of structural capital and human capital is probably inherent to the main goal and the overall strategy.
6. Coordinating macro-economic policies: fiscal consolidation, quality and sustainability of public The next step of our research was that we translated the Lisbon Agenda into indicators. This resulted in 38 indicators The EU aims to coordinate macro-economic policies of for measuring the intellectual capital of EU countries. its member states and to improve the quality and Table 5 gives an overview of the indicators. The figures sustainability of public finances. The quality of public between brackets refer to the goals from which they are finances can be seen as a form of structural capital.
7. Education and training for living and working in the Although many more indicators could be thought of, The EU considers people to be its main asset. Therefore the choice of indicators is of course largely dependent on it aims at a substantial annual increase in per capita availability of data for all countries.
investment in human resources thereby lowering the Another striking point is that most indicators refer to the past number of 18 to 24 year olds with only lower-secondary (effects) or present (assets). Only few of the goals can be level education. Also the EU wants to increase human translated into indicators that say something about the future (investments). In terms of relational capital, no indicators 8. More and better jobs for Europe: developing an active could be found at all. This dominant focus on past and present reflects the traditional focus of statistical institutions.
One of the EU’s core aims is to reduce unemployment thereby increasing the level of productive human capital within the EU. The employment rate is an indicator of human capital assets. To increase this human capital EU governments invest in labor market policy measures.
9. Modernizing social protection and promoting social According to the EU, the European social model, with its developed systems of social protection, must underpin the transformation to the knowledge economy.
According to the Council this is possible if the system is sustainable in the long-term, ensures that work pays, Human capital
Structural capital
Relational capital
• Number of patents granted by the United • Number of EU directives not notified (4) • General government consolidated gross Investments • Total public expenditure on
• Expenditure for IT hardware, equipment, • Gross domestic expenditure on R&D • The share of persons with an equivalised Indicators for measuring the IC of the EU Value of intellectual capital
Value of intellectual capital in the EU
This paragraph first analyses the intellectual capital of the The Nordic countries Denmark, Sweden and Finland invest EU-15 in 2001 from the perspectives of investments, assets the most in intellectual capital, whereby the focus of and effects. Next we investigate the growth of intellectual Denmark is on human capital and that of Sweden and capital between 1999 and 2001. Finally we investigate Finland on structural capital. Denmark scores high on both whether there is a correlation between the value of investments in education and investments in labour market policy. Sweden and Finland score high on investments in R&D, being the only countries in the EU that exceed the Value of intellectual capital investments
norm of 3% of GNP. There is a group of followers that This perspective gives insight into the future power of an includes Belgium, Germany, France, The Netherlands and organization/nation. To maintain or strengthen its present Austria. Belgium is second in terms of investments in human power, organizations/nations should invest in its intellectual capital but its investments in structural capital are much capital continuously. Figure 2 shows the value of the lower, resulting in a fourth place. Finally there is a group of investments in intellectual capital of the 15 EU countries on laggards consisting of the UK, Ireland, Portugal, a scale from zero to one. We made a distinction between investments in human capital and investments in structural capital. We did not find any indicators for investments in For comparison we have included Japan and the USA.
However, it should be noted that in those values the indicator “Total public expenditure on labour market policy Value of Intellectual capital of EU countries
measures as a percentage of GDP” is not included. Japan (Investments)
scores high on investments in structural capital but low on investments in human capital. The USA have the highest values on both. The average value of investments of the EU-15 is slightly higher then Japan but substantially lower Value of intellectual capital assets
This perspective provides an overview of the current main assets from an intellectual capital perspective. It gives an indication of the present power of an organization/nation.
Figure 3 visualizes the value of the intellectual capital of the EU. Again Sweden, Denmark and Finland have the highest values. Then there is a big group headed by the United Kingdom that includes Ireland, Austria, The Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg, and France. At the bottom we find the South European countries Spain, Portugal, Investments in Intellectual Capital in 2001 (HCI=Human Capital Investments, SCI=Structural Capital Investments) We have included Japan and the USA for comparison.
However, for those countries a number of indicators were Value of Intellectual capital of EU countries
(Assets)
missing (see appendix 1). For Japan three indicators were missing for human capital, six for structural capital and two for relational capital. For the USA three indicators were missing for human capital, three for structural capital and two for relational capital. Both countries score high on human capital assets, slightly below Sweden, Finland and Denmark. The USA score high on structural capital, behind Sweden and Finland. Japan scores low on structural capital, slightly below France. The average value of intellectual capital assets of the EU-15 is slightly higher then Japan and substantially lower than the USA. This is the same pattern as we saw with intellectual capital investments. Both Japan and the USA score low on relational capital.
From this one might be tempted to conclude that small countries have higher values for their relational capital because they need other countries more then big countries do. We did however not find a significant correlation between population and the value of relational capital (HCA= Humans Capital Assets, SCA= Structural Capital Assets, Investments in intellectual capital pay off:
Noticeable is that the leading group (SE, DK, FI) has there is a strong and significant correlation considerably higher value of human capital and structural between investments and assets.
capital and laggards (ES, PT, EL, IT) have considerably lower value of human capital and structural capital. Important question is of course whether investments in This supports the idea that human capital and structural intellectual capital contribute to increase in the value of capital are interdependent and mutual enhancing factors.
intellectual capital assets. As expected there is a strong and They “go together” in the creation of intellectual capital. significant correlation between in human capital investments This is what Edvinsson (2002) calls the multiplier effect. and human capital assets (0.470). In addition there is a This is further supported by a strong and significant strong correlation between structural capital investments correlation between human capital and structural capital and structural capital assets (0.686). So, countries that have assets (0.806). However, we did not find a significant a high value of intellectual capital investments also have a correlation between relational capital assets and other types high value of intellectual capital assets.
Value of intellectual capital effects
Human capital and structural capital “go together”:
This perspective shows the extent to which the organization/ Leading countries have considerably higher value of nation has made its intangibles productive during the past both human capital and structural capital.
period. Figure 4 shows the value of the effects of human, structural and relational capital. Related to the Lisbon Value of Intellectual capital of EU countries
agenda we find that Germany has the highest score, (Effects)
followed by Luxembourg. Germany has a high score on labour productivity as well as on value added of knowledge intensive services, relative to GDP. Luxembourg has the highest score on labour productivity. Germany also scores very high on the use of Internet and absence of poverty. The high scores of Germany and Luxembourg reflect the strong emphasis of the Lisbon Agenda on improving social cohesion. The social items on the Lisbon Agenda are often overlooked but are an integral part of it. This is reflected in the choice of our indicators, including indicators like absence of poverty and life expectancy.
Germany and Luxembourg are followed by the UK, The Netherlands and Denmark. Denmark scores very high on structural capital effects, especially the use of Internet, the birth rate of enterprises, and absence of poverty, but low on relational capital effects. A third group consists of Sweden, France, Ireland, Finland, Belgium and Austria. (HCE=Human Capital Effects, SCE=Structural Capital Effects, At the bottom we find the same group of countries as we found above: Italy, Spain, Greece and Portugal.
Striking is that the ranking of the countries significantly Comparison with Japan and the USA is difficult as the value differs from the previous two rankings (investments and of their structural capital effects is only based on one assets). In this ranking Sweden, Denmark and Finland fall to indicator (life expectancy). However, the USA have the third a respective 5th, 6th and 9th place. High values of intellectual highest score on human capital effects and the highest capital investments and assets are no guarantee for high score on relational capital effects. Japan scores low on intellectual productivity. However, low values of intellectual human and relational capital effects, performing slightly capital assets do seem to be a guarantee for low intellectual better then Spain (human capital effects) and productivity. It seems that intellectual capital investments The Netherlands (relational capital effects) respectively.
and assets are necessary, but not sufficient to make Because Japan has the highest score on life expectancy intellectual capital productive. One possible explanation is and because this is the only Japanese structural capital that there is a time lag between investments, the creation of effect indicator Japan ends in third place.
assets and the productivity of those assets. High value of IC is no guarantee for high productivity:
However, low values of intellectual capital assets do seem to be a guarantee for low intellectual productivity.
Growth in Intellectual Capital
(1999-2001)
Growth in Intellectual Capital (1999-2001)
The average year of the 38 indicators was 2001. To see what on expenditure on education, while Ireland has also lowered the development was in intellectual capital we searched for expenditure on labour market policy measures. In the UK, data from earlier years. We aimed for data from 1995, Greece and the USA there has been a lowering of however because of unavailability of data we did not succeed investments in ICT between 2000 and 2003. For Germany for all indicators. As a result the average year for the earlier (0.16), Italy (0.13), Spain and France (0.12) the growth in indicators turned out to be 1999 (see appendix 1). the value of investments has been the highest. Europe as a To calculate the value of the intellectual capital for 1999 whole has increased the value of its intellectual capital we used the same value scale as constructed for 2001. investments with 0.09 between 1999 and 2001.
This means that the minimum and maximum values from 2001 were used for 1999. This allowed us to measure the Based on the current investments in IC, we expect that development in value between 1999 and 2001.
the relative position of Germany will improve.
Growth in Investments
If it is true (as suggested above) that there is a time lag Figure 5 shows the development in the value of intellectual between the investments in IC and the value of IC assets, capital investments between 1999 and 2001. Most countries these figures could indicate that the relative position of have increased the value of their intellectual capital countries like Ireland, the UK and Finland will worsen. investments, except for Ireland, Finland, the UK, Greece At the same time the relative position of Germany will and the USA. Ireland and Finland have cut back significantly Growth in the value of intellectual capital investments between 1999 and 2001 (ICI=Intellectual Capital Investments) Growth in Assets
Its employment rate has increased by 6.1% between 1995 Figure 6 shows the development in value of intellectual and 2003 and the number of foreign students has increased capital assets. All countries have increased the value of their by 38% between 1998 and 2002. In Ireland employment has intellectual capital assets except for the USA. In the USA the risen with 10% and the international outgoing telecom traffic employment indicators, the number of scientific publications has risen with 240% between 1995 and 1999, probably as a and the number of patents has decreased, which explains a result of the growth in number of international call centres.
decrease in value of –0.005. Sweden has managed to Europe as a whole has increased the value of its intellectual achieve the highest growth in value (0.11). This is largely capital assets with 0.05 between 1999 and 2001.
due to an increase in human and relational capital assets.
Human capital assets have increased as a result of progress The European Union is catching up with the USA:
in lifelong learning, number of researchers and employment.
Relational capital assets have increased as a result of a rise in the number of foreign students and international outgoing Noticeable in this figure is that the value of IC assets telecom traffic. Second highest growth in value has been increased in all EU countries. This supports the idea that the achieved by Finland and Ireland. Finland has almost knowledge economy is growing. At the other hand we see doubled its number of researchers between 1995 and 2001.
that the value of IC assets in the USA decreases, which Growth in the value of intellectual capital assets between 1999 and 2001 means that the EU is catching up with the USA, although it relational capital indicator ‘royalty and license fees’ has grown with 113%. Europe as a whole has increased the value of its intellectual capital effects with 0.06 between Growth in Effects
Figure 7 shows the development in the value of intellectual capital effects. The biggest progress in value has been The European Union is better in leveraging IC:
achieved by Denmark (0.10) mainly because of a substantial This supports the idea that high values of IC assets are growth in relational capital effects: the export of services in Denmark rose from 16% of all exports in 1995 to 27% in 2002, and there was a substantial growth in the number of As a whole, the EU became better in making its intangibles countries it collaborated with writing scientific publications.
productive. Moreover, if we calculate the ratio between Denmark is followed by France (0.08) and Belgium (0.07).
assets and effects, we see that the EU is better in Portugal is the only country where the value of intellectual leveraging intellectual capital. In the USA, one value unit of capital effects has decreased, due to a relative decrease in intellectual capital assets leads to 0.93 units of IC effects, labour productivity, compared with the USA. The growth of while in Europe one unit of IC assets leads to 1.10 units of Japan is biased because the structural capital effect IC effects. This supports the idea that high values of IC indicator for Japan only includes life expectancy, whose assets are no guarantee for high intellectual productivity.
value has risen by 67%. In addition the value of the Growth in the value of intellectual capital effects between 1999 and 2001 Intellectual capital and GDP
We also did not find a statistical correlation between GDP One could think there is a relationship between intellectual and intellectual capital assets (see figure 9). We did find capital investments and wealth. However, we only found a significant correlations between human capital & relational significant statistical correlation between GDP per capita capital effects and GDP per capita. This indicates that the and investments in structural capital (0.531), not with effects we are measuring are not only the result of investments in human intellectual capital. This means that intellectual capital, but also the effect of financial wealth.
richer countries do not invest relatively (per capita) more in This may explain why Germany and Luxembourg score high human capital then poorer countries, although they will on effects but much lower on assets.
invest more in absolute terms (see figure 8). References
References
Amidon, D.M. (2001). The Intellectual Capital of Nations.
High Level Group chaired by Wim Kok, November, Entovation International. Internet version.
http://europa.eu.int/comm/lisbon_strategy/index_en.html.
Andriessen, D.G. (2004), Making sense of intellectual International Business Efficiency Consulting (IBEC). (2003) capital. Elsevier Butterworth Heinemann, Boston.
Intellectual capital: efficiency in Croatian economy.
Bontis, N. (2002), 'Managing Organizational Knowledge by Diagnosing Intellectual Capital. Framing and Advancing Kennisland (2003), Tijd om te kiezen. 2003 kenniseconomie the State of the Field', In Bontis, N. and Choo, monitor, september, Stichting Nederland Kennisland, C. W. (Ed.), The Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital and Organizational Knowledge, M’Pherson, P. K., and Pike, S. (2001a) Accounting, Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York, pp. 621-642.
empirical measurement and Intellectual Capital.
Bontis, N. (2004). National Intellectual Capital Index. Presented at the 4th World Congress on the The Benchmarking of Arab Countries. Journal of Management of Intellectual Capital, McMaster Intellectual Capital, Vol. 5, Nr. 1.
University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Brusoni, S., et al. (2002), New Indicators for the Knowledge- M’Pherson, P. K., and Pike, S. (2001b) “Accounting, Based Economy - NewKInd A user guide, July, empirical measurement and Intellectual Capital.” Journal of Intellectual Capital, 2(3):246–260.
Edvinsson, L. and Malone, M. S. (1997), Intellectual Capital. OECD (2001), OECD Science, Technology and Industry The proven way to establish your company's real value Scoreboard. Towards a knowledge-based economy, by measuring its hidden brainpower, HarperBusiness, Pasher, E. (1999). The Intellectual Capital of the State of Edvinsson, L. (2002). Corporate Longitude. London: Israel. Herzlia Pituach: Edna Pasher PhD & Associates, Pike, S., and Roos, G. (2000) “Intellectual capital European Parliament (2000), Lisbon European Council, measurement and holistic value approach (HVA).” 23 and 24 March 2000, Presidency Conclusions, Works Institute Journal (Japan), 42.
http:///europarl.eu.int/summits/lis1_en.htm.
Pike, S., Rylander, A., and Roos, G. (2002) “Intellectual Eustace, C. (2003), The PRISM Report. Research findings capital management and disclosure.” In: Bontis, N., and policy recommendations, October, European and Choo, C. W., eds. The strategic management of intellectual capital and organizational knowledge. New York: Oxford University Press, 657–671.
EZ (1999), Immateriele Productiemiddelen. Balanceren Pulic, A. (2002). Intellectual Capital. Efficiency in Croatian met Kennis, Juni, Ministerie van Economische Zaken, Economy. Zagreb: International Business Efficiency EZ (2000), Benchmarking The Netherlands, March, Rescher, N. (1969) Introduction to value theory. Ministry of Economic Affairs, The Hague.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
EZ (2002), Benchmarking The Netherlands, January, Roos, G., et al. (1997), Intellectual Capital: navigating in the Ministry of Economic Affairs, The Hague.
new business landscape, New York University Press, EZ (2003), Structural Indicators: Benchmarking The Netherlands, June, Ministry of Economic Affairs, Roos, G. (2003). An Intellectual Capital Primer. Internet High Level Group (2004), Facing the Challenge: The Lisbon Stam, C.D. (1999). Kennismanagement: de derde golf. Strategy for growth and employment. Report from the Het meten van weten. In Bijl, J., et al. (red.), Managementwijzer Kennismanagement, 11-18.
Noordwijk: de Baak - Management Centrum VNO-NCW.
Stam, C.D. (2001). Intellectual Capital geeft invulling aan Business Intelligence. KM Vakblad over kennismanagement, Vol. 7, Nr. 3, pp.10-15.
Stewart, T. A. (1997), Intellectual Capital, The new wealth of organizations, Doubleday, New York.
Stewart, T. (2001), 'Accounting gets radical', Fortune, Vol., Stewart, T. A. (2002), The Wealth of Knowledge. Intellectual capital and the 21st Century Organization, Nicholas Sullivan, P. H. (2000), Value-driven Intellectual Capital. How to convert intangible corporate assets into market Sveiby, K. E. (1997), The New Organizational Wealth. Managing & Measuring Knowledge-based Assets, Berret-Koehler Publishers Inc., San Fransisco.
Sveiby, K. E. (1998), Measuring Intangibles and Intellectual Capital - An Emerging First Standard (internet version, Aug.5 1998), http://www.sveiby.com. Van Aken, J. E. (1996) “Methodologische vraagstukken bij het ontwerpen van bedrijfskundige systemen.” Bedrijfskunde, jaargang 68/2:14–22.
Weick, K. E. (1995) Sense-making in organizations. London: Youngman, R. (2003), Understanding Today’s Economy and its Residuals, March, PRISM, London, Appendices
Appendix 1: Overview of indicators
Indicator
Missing countries
HCA_1: Proportion of total population having completed at least upper secondary education HCA_2: Proportion of active population using a computer for professional purposes that had HCA_3: Proportion of the adult population aged 25 to 64 participating in education and training HCA_4: Researchers per thousand total employment HCA_6: Employment in Knowledge intensive services and High tech & medium - high tech manufacturing HCI_1: Total expenditure on education as % of GDP HCI_2: Total public expenditure on labor market HCE_2: Value added of knowledge intensive SCA_1: Percentage of households who have SCA_2: Percentage of enterprises who have SCA_3: Number of patent applications to the European Patent Office (EPO) per million inhabitants SCA_4: Number of patent applications to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) SCA_5: Number of scientific publications per million SCA_6: Enterprise environment indicator from SCA_10: Venture Capital Investment as % of GDP SCA_11: Number of EU directives not notified SCA_12: General government consolidated gross SCI_1: Gross domestic expenditure on R&D as % Indicator
Missing countries
SCI_2: Expenditure for IT hardware, equipment, software and other services as a percentage of GDP SCE_1: Percentage of businesses using the SCE_3: The share of persons with an equivalised disposable income below the risk-of-poverty threshold SCE_4: Value added of high tech industry, RCA_1: Percentage of international meetings hosted RCA_2: SMEs involved in innovation co-operation RCA_3: Foreign students as percentage of RCA_4: international outgoing telecom traffic RCE_1: Breadth of international scientific collaboration RCE_2: Percentage of patents with foreign RCE_3: Export of royalty and license fees Appendix 2: Methodology
It was our aim to value the intellectual capital of the Independence: changes in the satisfaction of an European Union using the Intellectual Capital Monitor. attribute must not influence any other attributes Value can be defined as “the degree of usefulness or Minimality: the attributes should be minimal sets desirability of something. Especially in comparison with Furthermore, each attribute should be observable and other things”(Andriessen, 2004, p. 11). What is useful or desirable is subjective. It depends on the person that is doing the valuation. Value, like beauty, is in the eye of the The next set of requirements deals with the process of beholder. Valuation requires the availability of values combining different measurements into one measure. (Rescher, 1969). A yardstick is needed to determine what is This includes the problem of different units and scales. useful or desirable. Often this yardstick has many To solve this problem the authors normalize all dimensions. If we judge the desirability of an apple we will measurements by subtracting the minimal value and dividing be looking at things like taste, colour, scent and tenability.
it by the total length of the scale. The result is a number To come to an overall estimation of the value of that apple between zero and one. Zero denotes the threshold of we need to combine the separate assessments into one uselessness; one signifies that the maximum value is valuation. This process is called multidimensional value completely achieved. In practice, this requirement means that for every indicator, a target value or maximum value needs to be defined. This target value acts as a yardstick M’Pherson and Pike (2001a), as well as Pike and Roos (2000), have defined the functional requirements for proper multidimensional value measurement. Their method is The authors also define rules for combining various value based on axiology or value theory, which states that value is streams. Here the authors state that when it comes to measurable if the preferences of the beholder are well combining value, the additive rule (1 + 1 = 2) is an defined. This is what Pike et al. (2002) call a hierarchy of exception. Much more common is the so-called G-rule,
value. Their method requires that this value hierarchy be the goal-oriented rule that indicates that achieving a certain made explicit for every stakeholder for whom we want to goal requires a trade-off between different values. When we measure value. This includes a description of the combine indicators into one indicator we need to use the stakeholder’s objectives. The method assumes that all correct combinatory rule. The correct combinatory rule stakeholders will have the same set of objectives, but that they will differ in the relative importance of each objective (Pike and Roos, 2000). For each stakeholder a set of We have tried to apply this approach of multidimensional value measurement to the intellectual capital of 15 European states. The beholder from whose view the The next requirement is that these objectives be translated valuation takes place is the European Council. into attributes that can be measured. These attributes must The objectives with respect to the EU that we used as be necessary and sufficient with respect to the objective.
the basis for our valuation are the objectives of the Lisbon Agenda. We have translated these objectives into attributes Completeness: they cover the full meaning of the and grouped them into human capital, structural capital and objective as understood by the stakeholder relational capital attributes and into assets, investments and Distinctness: each attribute must carry one meaning effects. In total we have used 38 indicators.
Then we have tried to create a value hierarchy of the Agenda. The only quantitative target that has been decided beholder based on the Lisbon Agenda and to identify upon is the requirement to spend 3% of GNP on R&D.
minimum and target values. We have used these minimum However, the overall goal is to become the most competitive and maximum values to normalize all indicators by and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world. subtracting the minimal value and dividing it by the total This led us to the assumption that the target or maximum length of the scale. We have used the value hierarchy to find value of each indicator (except R&D) should be the value of the appropriate combinatory rules. These were used to the country in the world that performs best with respect to develop 9 separate indicators for human capital, structural that particular indicator. In practice we narrowed this down capital and relational capital and assets, investments and to the highest value of USA, Japan or one of the 15 EU effect, using the 3x3 matrix of the IC Monitor. As a next step countries. Finding the threshold of uselessness was more the three asset indicators were combined into one difficult. We decided that the minimum value for an indicator intellectual capital assets indicator and the same was done was equal to the value of the lowest value of the 15 EU with respect to investment and effects. The result was a set of 12 combined indicators as shown in table 6.
The combinatory rules are based on the value hierarchy of Multidimensional value measurement requires the use the stakeholder. This hierarchy expresses the preferences of a maximum and minimum for each indicator. of the stakeholder with respect to the relative importance of The minimum value denotes the threshold of uselessness; the various objectives and underlying indicators. However, the maximum signifies that the maximum value is the European Council did not state what its preferences completely achieved. Maximum and minimum values can be were. This forced us to create our own hierarchy. used to normalize each indicator using a value scale For matters of transparency we choose to make every between zero and one. Unfortunately the European Council objective and indicator equally important and to apply has not been very specific about the targets of the Lisbon Human capital
Structural capital
Relational capital
Intellectual Capital
Investments
Table 6: Combined intellectual capital indicators Appendix 3: Abbreviations

Source: http://www.intellectualcapital.nl/publications/ICofEU2004.pdf