IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

A Retrospective Of Evaluation Models On Intellectual Capital

Listed author(s):
  • Ienciu Nicoleta Maria


    (Babes-Bolyai University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration)

Registered author(s):

    In the classical theory of economics, capital is one of the three factors of production, in addition to land and labor, and refers in particular to buildings, equipment, and machinery etc., used for the production of other goods (the term physical capital is also used by the specialized literature) (Brãtianu & Jianu, 2006). The present study intend to bring to the forefront the main evalluation methods for intellectual capital, as proposed, supported and criticized at the same time by researchers and practitioners. The study offers response to the following research questions: Which are the advantages and disadvantages of the intellectual capital evaluation methods? And what are the main studies approaching the subject of intellectual capital evaluation at international level? The collection and analysis of intellectual capital evaluation models and the non-participative observation are the main instruments used to bring to the forefront the main international existing evaluation frameworks. The information sources representing the base for these researches are especially constituted by articles published in specialized magazines, both from accounting and economics fields, specialized works relevant to the reference field, legislative documents, official documents, press releases and other documents issued by various national and international bodies. The most representative studies bringing to the forefront the evaluation of intellectual capital are the ones elaborated by Mouritsen et al (Mouritsen et al, 2001), Manea and Gorgan (Manea and Gorgan, 2003), Tayles (Tayles, 2002), Tayles et al (Tayles et al, 2007). The presented approaches offer a general idea on the range of methods, disciplines and operational specializations existing for the evaluation of intellectual capital. Only one of them - Balanced Scorecard - is largely used, while the rest of the methods remain too theoretical or too poorly developed to be universally accepted. We believe that the efforts from the regulation and standardization bodies in the view of intellectual capital evaluation are too small, despite the fact that community shows an increased interest in this sense, many companies being tempted to build their own system of evaluating performances with regards to intellectual capital.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    Article provided by University of Oradea, Faculty of Economics in its journal The Annals of the University of Oradea. Economic Sciences.

    Volume (Year): 1 (2011)
    Issue (Month): 2 (December)
    Pages: 544-549

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:ora:journl:v:1:y:2011:i:2:p:544-549
    Contact details of provider: Postal:
    Universitatii str. 1, Office F209, 410087 Oradea, Bihor

    Phone: +40259408799
    Fax: 004 0259 408409
    Web page:

    More information through EDIRC

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    in new window

    1. Mike Tayles, 2007. "Intellectual capital, management accounting practices and corporate performance: Perceptions of managers," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 20(4), pages 522-548, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ora:journl:v:1:y:2011:i:2:p:544-549. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Catalin ZMOLE)

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.