Marketing and Management of Innovations

ISSN (print) – 2218-4511 

ISSN (online) – 2227-6718

Registered in the Media Registrants-Register

Identifier in the register: R30-01179 Decision dated August 31, 2023, No. 759

The language of publication is English. 

Issued 4 times a year (March, June, September, December) since 2010

Business Model: Golden Open Access | APC Policy

Publisher & Founder:

logo_longENG

Editor-in-Chieff             View Editorial Board

Oleksii Lyulyov

Sumy State University | Ukraine

Impact of Marketing, Sales and Innovations on Business Performance Analysis in Intellectual Capital Research: Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania

Nellija Titova 1 , *, , , Biruta Sloka  2,  
  1. Faculty of Business and Economics, EKA University, Latvia
  2. Faculty of Business and Economics, University of Latvia, Latvia

     * Corresponding author

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21272/mmi.2024.3-03

Pages: 27–39

Received: 7 May 2024

Revised: 15 July 2024

Accepted: 7 September 2024

Abstract

Intellectual capital components’ meta system has exploded in the past decade following the four decades of intellectual capital research evolution, followed by wide discussions on definitions, measurements, reporting, impact analysis, etc. The evolution of IC research has been divided into four stages, although the borders between them are fluid and the exchange of ideas has grown in all directions at tremendous speed since the end of the 1990s. The intellectual capital theory has evolved from the resource-based view, competence-based view, and knowledge-based view. Intellectual capital, a new term, appeared in the 1990s and, in essence, coincided with the concept of intangible assets. In particular, researchers agree that the terms “intangible assets”, “trademark”, “good repute”, and “intellectual property” in accounting and valuation activities do not cover everything that should be included in the new concept. It is about using intangible assets as a management object to increase the value of the company by involving previously unused reserves such as knowledge, information technology, customer satisfaction, etc. There is no unified definition; therefore, there is flexibility in using the term. Owing to its significance in the new sustainable reality, intellectual capital has become crucial for growing economies and has been recognized as a fundamental discipline that is thoroughly supported by practitioners and government structures worldwide. On the basis of the analysis of intellectual capital research, research questions can be defined in the form of a block-chain of the research areas, including a) terminology and definition b) components and classification; c) measurement and evaluation systems; d) value creation and, more recently, distortions; e) efficiency and effectiveness; f) reporting and disclosure; g) impact assessment; h) decision-making; and i) indication of contradictions and gaps for further research. The study used a sample of Nasdaq Baltic Issuers in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia for the prepandemic period of 2012–2019 and collected 84 data units from the annexes to yearly financial statements explaining the cash flow and profit and loss statements of each. As companies are publicly listed, the financial measurements on the performance side were provided by the Morning star reports. Longitudinal regression analysis was applied for the impact analysis. The findings confirm that relational capital, measured as marketing and sales components with proxies for assets, sales revenue and value added, is significant in the case of ROA, ROE, ROS and RBS, which have positive impacts and do not affect the price‒earnings ratio of listed companies in Baltics. The exploratory longitudinal analysis confirms the data regarding the existence of a total of six factors in the pilot study that have an impact on the business performance indicators while showing different levels of significance, directions of impact and time scales, which highlights the unique findings of the current extended research on intellectual capital and is the first time that it has been applied in Baltic countries. Testing for the different proxies and moderate and control variables introduces new aspects to the analysis of the impact of resource deployment on business performance overall. Simultaneously, simplifying the model using composite aggregate ratios on both sides of the equation has created a precondition for optimizing impact models worldwide.

Keywords: Baltic countries; innovation capital; intellectual capital; longitudinal impact analysis; marketing; relational capital; sales.

How to Cite: Titova, N., & Sloka, B. (2024). Impact of Marketing, Sales and Innovations on Business Performance Analysis in Intellectual Capital Research: Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania. Marketing and Management of Innovations, 15(3), 27–39. https://doi.org/10.21272/mmi.2024.3-03

Abstract Views

PDF Downloads

ccbyThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

References

  1. Al Momani, K.M.K., Jamaludin, N., Wan Abdullah, W.Z., Nour, A.-N.I. (2020). Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews, 8(2), 132-149.
  2. Al-Dmour, H. H., Algharabat, R. S., Khawaja, R., & Al-Dmour, R. H. (2019). Investigating the impact of ECRM success factors on business performance: Jordanian commercial banks. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 31(1), 105-127. [Google Scholar][CrossRef]
  3. AlQershi, N. A., Mokhtar, S. S. M., & Abas, Z. B. (2022). CRM dimensions and performance of SMEs in Yemen: the moderating role of human capital. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 23(3), 516-537 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Anifowose, M., Abdul Rashid, H. M., Annuar, H. A., & Ibrahim, H. (2018). Intellectual capital efficiency and corporate book value: evidence from Nigerian economy. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 19(3), 644-668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Aversano, N., Nicolò, G., Sannino, G., & Tartaglia Polcini, P. (2020). The Integrated Plan in Italian public universities: New patterns in intellectual capital disclosure. Meditari Accountancy Research, 28(4), 655-679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Baltic Nasdaq webpage (n.d.). [Link]
  7. Bayraktaroglu, A. E., Calisir, F., & Baskak, M. (2019). Intellectual capital and firm performance: an extended VAIC model. Journal of intellectual capital, 20(3), 406-425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Biedenbach, G., Hultén, P., & Tarnovskaya, V. (2019). B2B brand equity: investigating the effects of human capital and relational trust. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 34(1), 1-11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Campos, S., Dias, J. G., Teixeira, M. S., & Correia, R. J. (2020). The link between intellectual capital and business performance: a mediation chain approach. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 23(2), 401-419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Canibano, L. (2018). Accounting and intangibles: Contabilidad e intangibles. Revista de Contabilidad-Spanish Accounting Review, 21(1), 1-6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Dameri, R. P., & Ferrando, P. M. (2021). Implementing integrated reporting to disclose intellectual capital in health organisations: a case study. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 22(2), 311-336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Dash, S. P., & Roy, S. (2020). Performance evaluation under human capital perspective: an empirical evidence. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 70(6), 1336-1360. [Google Scholar]
  13. Edvinsson, L., & Malone, M. S. (1997). Intellectual capital: The proven way to establish your company’s real value by finding its hidden brainpower. Piatkus. [Google Scholar]
  14. Fan, I. Y., & Lee, R. W. (2016). Intellectual capital-based innovation planning: empirical studies using wiNK model. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 17(3), 553-569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Feng, T., Cummings, L., & Tweedie, D. (2017). Exploring integrated thinking in integrated reporting–an exploratory study in Australia. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 18(2), 330-353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Firer, S., & Mitchell Williams, S. (2003). Intellectual capital and traditional measures of corporate performance. Journal of intellectual capital, 4(3), 348-360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Gallego, C., Mejía, G. M., & Calderón, G. (2020). Strategic design: origins and contributions to intellectual capital in organizations. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 21(6), 873-891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Gupta, K., & Raman, T. V. (2021). Intellectual capital: A determinant of firms’ operational efficiency. South Asian Journal of Business Studies, 10(1), 49-69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Guthrie, J., Petty, R., & Ricceri, F. (2006). The voluntary reporting of intellectual capital: comparing evidence from Hong Kong and Australia. Journal of intellectual capital, 7(2), 254-271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Guthrie, J., Ricceri, F., & Dumay, J. (2012). Reflections and projections: a decade of intellectual capital accounting research. The british accounting review, 44(2), 68-82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Hapsah S., & Bujang, I. (2019). Performance of malaysian financial firms: an intellectual capital perspective using mvaic model, Asian Economic and Financial Review, 9(7), 752-765;
  22. Hatamizadeh, N., Ahmadi, M., Vameghi, R., & Hosseini, M. A. (2020). Intellectual capital in rehabilitation organizations: Concept clarification. Journal of Health Research, 34(3), 195-207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Heikal, M., Khaddafi, M., & Ummah, A. (2014). Influence analysis of return on assets (ROA), return on equity (ROE), net profit margin (NPM), the debt-to-equity ratio (DER), and the current ratio (CR) against corporate profit growth in automotive companies on the Indonesia Stock Exchange. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 4(12), 101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Huan, N., & Hang, T. (2020). Analysing Financial Factors to Improve Production and Business Efficiency. International Journal of Economics and Business Administration, 8(1), 42-50. [Google Scholar]
  25. Hussen, M. S. (2020). Exploring the impact of various typologies of human capital on firms’ productivity. World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, 16(3), 231-247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Hussinki, H., Ritala, P., Vanhala, M., & Kianto, A. (2017). Intellectual capital, knowledge management practices and firm performance. Journal of intellectual capital, 18(4), 904-922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Hutahayan, B. (2020). The mediating role of human capital and management accounting information system in the relationship between innovation strategy and internal process performance and the impact on corporate financial performance. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 27(4), 1289-1318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Jordão, R., Ribeiro de Almeida, V. (2017). Performance measurement, intellectual capital and financial sustainability. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 18(3), 643-666.
  29. Kamath, G.B. (2017). An investigation into intellectual capital efficiency and export performance of firms in India. International Journal of Learning and Intellectual Capital, 14(1), 47 – 75.[Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Kong, E., & Prior, D. (2008). An intellectual capital perspective of competitive advantage in nonprofit organisations. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 13(2), 119-128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kourtis, E., Kourtis, G., & Curtis, P. (2019). Αn Integrated Financial Ratio Analysis as a Navigation Compass through the Fraudulent Reporting Conundrum: Α Case Study. International Journal of Finance, Insurance and Risk Management, 9(1-2), 3-20. [Google Scholar]
  32. Lentjušenkova, O., & Lapiņa, I. (2020). An integrated process-based approach to intellectual capital management. Business Process Management Journal, 26(7), 1833-1850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Lerro, A., Linzalone, R., & Schiuma, G. (2014). Managing intellectual capital dimensions for organizational value creation. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 15(3), 350-361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Lin, C. Y. (2018). Intellectual capital of South Africa: a comparison with Poland and Romania. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 19(3), 498-518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Łopaciuk-Gonczaryk, B. (2019). Does participation in social networks foster trust and respect for other people—Evidence from Poland. Sustainability, 11(6), 1733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Martín-de Castro, G., Díez-Vial, I., & Delgado-Verde, M. (2019). Intellectual capital and the firm: evolution and research trends. Intellectual capital and the firm: evolution and research trends, 20(4), 555-580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Martini, S. B., Corvino, A., Doni, F., & Rigolini, A. (2016). Relational capital disclosure, corporate reporting and company performance. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 17(2), 186-217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Massaro, M., Dumay, J., Garlatti, A., & Dal Mas, F. (2018). Practitioners’ views on intellectual capital and sustainability: From a performance-based to a worth-based perspective. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 19(2), 367-386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Mubarik, M. S., Devadason, E. S., & Govindaraju, C. (2020). Human capital and export performance of small and medium enterprises in Pakistan. International Journal of Social Economics, 47(5), 643-662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Nadeem, M., Gan, C., & Nguyen, C. (2017). Does intellectual capital efficiency improve firm performance in BRICS economies? A dynamic panel estimation. Measuring Business Excellence, 21(1), 65-85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Pawirosumarto, S., & Iriani, D. (2018). The Influence of Work Stress, Working Cost, Compensation and Work Discipline on Employee’Productivity. International Journal of Economics & Business Administration (IJEBA), 6(4), 62-75. [Google Scholar]
  42. Pedro, E., Leitão, J., & Alves, H. (2018a). Intellectual capital and performance: Taxonomy of components and multidimensional analysis axes. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 19(2), 407-452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Pedro, E., Leitão, J., & Alves, H. (2018b). Back to the future of intellectual capital research: a systematic literature review. Management Decision, 56(11), 2502-2583. [Google Scholar]
  44. Pulic, A. (2000). VAIC™–an accounting tool for IC management. International journal of technology management, 20(5-8), 702-714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Radić, S. (2018). Impact Of Intellectual Capital On Profitability Of Commercial Banks In Serbia. Economic Annals, 63(216), 85-110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Rupeika-Apoga, R., & Saksonova, S. (2018). SMEs’ Alternative Financing: The Case of Latvia. European Research Studies, 21(3), 43-52. [Google Scholar]
  47. Samonov, M. (2021). The age of Intangible Investing. [Link]
  48. Sardo, F., & Serrasqueiro, Z. (2017). A European empirical study of the relationship between firms’ intellectual capital, financial performance and market value. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 18(4), 771-788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Scafarto, V., Ricci, F., & Scafarto, F. (2016). Intellectual capital and firm performance in the global agribusiness industry: the moderating role of human capital. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 17(3), 530-552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Secundo, G., Massaro, M., Dumay, J., & Bagnoli, C. (2018). Intellectual capital management in the fourth stage of IC research: A critical case study in university settings. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 19(1), 157-177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Sharma, P., Sivakumaran, B., & Marshall, R. (2005). Deliberate self-indulgence vs. involuntary loss of self-control: Exploring the influence of culture on consumer impulsiveness trait. E-European Advances in Consumer Research, 7, 593-594. [Google Scholar]
  52. Sobakinova, D., Zhou, Y., Durrani, D.K. (2019). The role of human capital outcomes in generating business ideas, VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, 50(1), 163-183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Soewarno, N., & Tjahjadi, B. (2020). Measures that matter: an empirical investigation of intellectual capital and financial performance of banking firms in Indonesia. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 21(6), 1085-1106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Solovjova, I., Rupeika-Apoga, R., & Romānova, I. (2018). Competitiveness Enhancement of International Financial Centres. European Research Studies Journal, 21(1), 5-17. [Google Scholar]
  55. Sveiby, K. (1997). The Intangible Assets Monitor. Journal of Human Resource Costing & Accounting, 2(1), 73 – 97. [Google Scholar][CrossRef]
  56. Temouri, Y., Pereira, V., Muschert, G. W., Ramiah, V., & Babula, M. (2021). How does cluster location and intellectual capital impact entrepreneurial success within high-growth firms?. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 22(1), 171-189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Tiwari, R., & Vidyarthi, H. (2018). Intellectual capital and corporate performance: a case of Indian banks. Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies, 8(1), 84-105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Tjahjadi, B., Soewarno, N., Nadyaningrum, V., & Aminy, A. (2022). Human capital readiness and global market orientation in Indonesian Micro, Small-and-Medium-sized Enterprises business performance. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 71(1), 79-99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Torres, A. I., Ferraz, S. S., & Santos-Rodrigues, H. (2018). The impact of knowledge management factors in organizational sustainable competitive advantage. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 19(2), 453-472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Ulum, I., Kharismawati, N., & Syam, D. (2017). Modified value-added intellectual coefficient (MVAIC) and traditional financial performance of Indonesian biggest companies. International Journal of Learning and Intellectual Capital, 14(3), 207-219. [Google Scholar][CrossRef]
  61. Vadi, M., Reino, A., & Aidla, A. (2019). The relationship between intangible assets and firm productivity–still myth or is there new evidence?. International Journal of Manpower, 40(6), 1030-1035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Vishnu, S., Gupta, V.K. (2014). Intellectual capital and performance of pharmaceutical firms in India. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 15(1), 83 – 99;
  63. Vrontis, D., Christofi, M., Battisti, E., & Graziano, E. A. (2021). Intellectual capital, knowledge sharing and equity crowdfunding. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 22(1), 95-121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Wahyuni, N. M., & Sara, I. M. (2020). The effect of entrepreneurial orientation variables on business performance in the SME industry context. Journal of Workplace Learning, 32(1), 35-62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Weqar, F., Sofi, Z. A., & Haque, S. I. (2021). Nexus between intellectual capital and business performance: evidence from India. Asian Journal of Accounting Research, 6(2), 180-195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Whiting, R. H., Hansen, P., & Sen, A. (2017). A tool for measuring SMEs’ reputation, engagement and goodwill: A New Zealand exploratory study. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 18(1), 170-188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Xu, J., & Li, J. (2019). The impact of intellectual capital on SMEs’ performance in China: Empirical evidence from non-high-tech vs. high-tech SMEs. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 20(4), 488-509. [Google Scholar]
  68. Xu, J., & Liu, F. (2020). The Impact of Intellectual Capital on Firm Performance: A Modified and Extended VAIC Model. Journal of Competitiveness, 12(1), 161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

View articles in other formats

License

ccby This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

Coyright

Copyright (c) 2024 The Author(s).

Published by Sumy State University

Issue

Contacts

Sumy State University
116, Kharkivska st., 40007 Sumy, Ukraine

e-mail: mmi@fem.sumdu.edu.ua

About us

About publisher Sumy State University

Journal’s history

Advertising 

Follow us

LinkedIn

Twitter

 

Company 2023 © Sumy State University