Is this the end? Reflections on the use of intellectual capital measurements and reports

In the last two decades, scholars, practitioners and governments have underlined the relevance of measuring and reporting intellectual capital (IC). The reasons for this can be internal (managerial) and external (disclosure). Regarding the former, several studies have shown that measuring and reporting IC should support the understanding and management of the organizational value creation process, the activation of learning processes and a better resource allocation. With reference to the external reasons, reporting IC should reduce the information asymmetry and thus explain and reduce the gap between market value and book value (Edvinsson, 2013; Edvinsson and Malone, 1997; Guthrie, et al., 2001; Guthrie, et al., 2012; Lev, 2001; Mouritsen, 2006; Mouritsen and Larsen, 2005). These ideas have led to the design of a plethora of IC measurement and reporting methods and tools that are rarely applied in practice (Dumay, 2013; Guthrie, et al., 2012; Marr and Chatzkel, 2004). Analysing the evolution of IC research (Guthrie, et al., 2012; Petty and Guthrie, 2000), it seems that while a first stream of studies focused on the development of a commonly accepted terminology of IC and of several IC measurement guidelines, i.e. on the production of IC concepts, methods and tools, a second a more recent stream is more centred on the use of IC concepts and measurements with an increasing attention to critical and practice-based reflections (Dumay, 2013; Guthrie, et al., 2012). Indeed, the fact that some “IC pioneers” companies, like Skandia, have abandoned IC reporting have contributed raising questions about whether it was something relevant or just a managerial fashion (Dumay, 2012; Fincham and Roslender, 2003; Mouritsen and Roslender, 2009). Moving from these considerations, some argue that there is the need to investigate the effects, the benefits and the drawbacks of measuring and reporting IC in practice in order to understand to what extent IC measurements and reports are used (or non-used) in the organizations and in the market and which internal and external elements can influence their fate (Catasús, et al., 2007; Catasús and Gröjer, 2006; Chiucchi, 2013; Dumay, 2012; Lönnqvist, et al., 2009). The aim of this paper is to analyse the use of IC measurements and reports from a longitudinal perspective, i.e. from their introduction up to date, in order to understand the potential organisational levers and barriers to their adoption and use. In order to achieve this aim, a field study approach has been adopted (Kaplan, 1986; Roslender and Hart, 2003; Scapens, 1990). More specifically, information has been gathered by means of in-depth semi-structured interviews and document analysis (Fontana and Frey, 1998; Qu and Dumay, 2011). Semi-structured interviews were selected as a means of data collection because they are well suited for the exploration of the perceptions and opinions of respondents regarding complex and sometimes sensitive issues (O'Dwyer, 2005). Additionally, by interviewing different managers from different organisations it becomes possible to understand whether an emergent finding is simply idiosyncratic to a single case or consistently replicated in several cases (Eisenhardt, 1989; Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007; Yin, 2003). In comparison to the extant studies, this one is not focused only on the production of IC measurements and reports (Andriessen, 2004; Edvinsson and Malone, 1997; Lev, 2001; Mouritsen and Larsen, 2005) or on their peculiarities (Giuliani and Marasca, 2011; Mouritsen, 2009) but also on their use. Moreover, this one does not offer a “snapshot”, i.e. referred to a specific moment, of the practical use of IC measurements and reports (Chaminade and Roberts, 2003) but adopts a longitudinal perspective, from the first implementation up to date, in order to understand if and how the use has evolved over time. Finally, this paper in not centred on a single case study (Chiucchi, 2008) but offers insights collected from several organisations in order to have a broader view on IC in practice (Chiucchi, 2013; Giuliani, 2013).