IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/globus/v16y2015i6p947-962.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Empirical Validity of Value Added Intellectual Coefficient Model in Indian Knowledge-based Sector

Author

Listed:
  • Shantanu Kumar Ghosh
  • Santi Gopal Maji

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to investigate empirically the validity of the basic propositions of value added intellectual coefficient (VAIC) and extend VAIC models in Indian knowledge-based sector. Using panel data relating to 62 firms from two Indian knowledge-based sectors, namely, electronics and banking sectors, for a period of 10 years (from 2001–2002 to 2010–2011), the study indicates that the VAIC model cannot be rejected as a technique of measuring intellectual capital. The result shows that VAIC significantly and positively influences the corporate performance measured by return on assets (ROA) and market-to-book (M/B) ratio. All the components of VAIC except structural capital (SC) efficiency (SCE) significantly and positively influence the corporate performance. The insignificant association between SCE and firm performance, as observed in the present context and also observed earlier by many researchers, may be regarded as the inappropriateness of the model in capturing structural capital. In order to modify the SC component of the model, the components of extended VAIC model may be used as a value-creating entity.

Suggested Citation

  • Shantanu Kumar Ghosh & Santi Gopal Maji, 2015. "Empirical Validity of Value Added Intellectual Coefficient Model in Indian Knowledge-based Sector," Global Business Review, International Management Institute, vol. 16(6), pages 947-962, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:globus:v:16:y:2015:i:6:p:947-962
    DOI: 10.1177/0972150915597597
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0972150915597597
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0972150915597597?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Carol Corrado & Charles Hulten & Daniel Sichel, 2005. "Measuring Capital and Technology: An Expanded Framework," NBER Chapters, in: Measuring Capital in the New Economy, pages 11-46, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. N/A, 2004. "Index for 2004," European Union Politics, , vol. 5(4), pages 511-512, December.
    3. Myers, Stewart C, 1984. "The Capital Structure Puzzle," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 39(3), pages 575-592, July.
    4. Birger Wernerfelt, 1984. "A resource‐based view of the firm," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 5(2), pages 171-180, April.
    5. Lev, B & Zarowin, P, 1999. "The boundaries of financial reporting and how to extend them," Journal of Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 37(2), pages 353-385.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Adesina, Kolade Sunday, 2019. "Bank technical, allocative and cost efficiencies in Africa: The influence of intellectual capital," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 419-433.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. David S. Jenkins & Gregory D. Kane & Uma Velury, 2009. "Earnings Conservatism and Value Relevance Across the Business Cycle," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(9-10), pages 1041-1058.
    2. Mindy X. Zhang & Qi Sun, 2016. "Financing Intangible Capital," 2016 Meeting Papers 230, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    3. Ioniţă Cătălin Gabriel, 2022. "Exploration vs. Exploitation: How Innovation Strategies Impact Firm Performance and Competitive Advantage," Proceedings of the International Conference on Business Excellence, Sciendo, vol. 16(1), pages 31-46, August.
    4. César Camisón & José Antonio Clemente & Sergio Camisón-Haba, 2022. "Asset tangibility, information asymmetries and intangibles as determinants of family firms leverage," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 16(7), pages 2047-2082, October.
    5. Annalisa Ferrando & Carsten Preuss, 2018. "What finance for what investment? Survey-based evidence for European companies," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 35(3), pages 1015-1053, December.
    6. Khalifa, Mariem & Trabelsi, Samir & Matoussi, Hamadi, 2022. "Leverage, R&D expenditures, and accounting conservatism: Evidence from technology firms," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 285-304.
    7. Beattie, Vivien & Smith, Sarah Jane, 2013. "Value creation and business models: Refocusing the intellectual capital debate," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 45(4), pages 243-254.
    8. Michael Ewens & Ryan H. Peters & Sean Wang, 2025. "Measuring Intangible Capital with Market Prices," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 71(1), pages 407-427, January.
    9. Akhtar, Muhammad & Haris, Muhammad & Naveed, Hafiz Muhammad & Rasool, Yasir & Al-Faryan, Mamdouh Abdulaziz Saleh, 2024. "Electricity shortfalls and financial leverage of listed firms in Pakistan," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    10. Federico Barnabè & Maria Cleofe Giorgino & Martin Kunc, 2019. "Visualizing and managing value creation through integrated reporting practices: a dynamic resource-based perspective," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 23(2), pages 537-575, June.
    11. Camisón-Haba, Sergio & González-Cruz, Tomás, 2020. "Information assets: A typology of disclosed and non-disclosed information," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    12. Sun, Qi & Xiaolan, Mindy Z., 2019. "Financing intangible capital," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 133(3), pages 564-588.
    13. Luminita Enache & Anup Srivastava, 2018. "Should Intangible Investments Be Reported Separately or Commingled with Operating Expenses? New Evidence," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(7), pages 3446-3468, July.
    14. Cappa, Francesco & Oriani, Raffaele & Pinelli, Michele & De Massis, Alfredo, 2019. "When does crowdsourcing benefit firm stock market performance?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    15. David S. Jenkins & Gregory D. Kane & Uma Velury, 2009. "Earnings Conservatism and Value Relevance Across the Business Cycle," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(9‐10), pages 1041-1058, November.
    16. Mercè Sala‐Ríos, 2024. "What are the determinants affecting cooperatives’ profitability? Evidence from Spain," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 95(1), pages 85-111, March.
    17. G. Scott Erickson, 2013. "Role of governance in national innovation systems: from intellectual property to intellectual capital," Chapters, in: Mehmet Ugur (ed.), Governance, Regulation and Innovation, chapter 10, pages 239-261, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    18. Hyunchul Lee & Kyungtag Lee & Jong Ha Lee, 2021. "The Various Effects of Technology Trade on the Sustainable Market Value of Firms in OECD Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-20, November.
    19. Pei, Duo & Vasarhelyi, Miklos A., 2020. "Big data and algorithmic trading against periodic and tangible asset reporting: The need for U-XBRL," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 37(C).
    20. Mehmet Ugur (ed.), 2013. "Governance, Regulation and Innovation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 15264.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:globus:v:16:y:2015:i:6:p:947-962. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.imi.edu/ .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.