INTANGIBLE ASSETS EFFECT OF THE ORGANIZATION CAPITAL IN MATURE AND INNOVATIVE SECTORS

Facultat Economia i Empresa

Doctorat en Creació, Estratègia i Gestió d’Empreses

Doctoral Thesis Proposal

INTANGIBLE ASSETS: EFFECT OF THE ORGANIZATION CAPITAL IN

MATURE AND INNOVATIVE SECTORS

Presented by Luis Blanco

Under the supervision of

PhD. Diego Prior PhD. Gonzalo Rodríguez

February 2010

____Intangible assets: effect of the organizational capital in mature and innovative sectors – Luis Blanco – 2010____

TABLE OF CONTENT

1. INTRODUCTION

General overview on the current status______________________________________ 3 Main objective_________________________________________________________ 5 Main objective’s relevance and support _____________________________________ 5

2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Problem statement empirical context status_________________________________ 6 Conceptual and theoretical framework: Resource Based View __________________ 9 Specific objectives in the research_________________________________________ 10 Contribution expected through this thesis dissertation _________________________ 12

3. METHODOLOGY AND EFFECTS THAT ARE EXPECTED IN THE RESEARCH

Methodology approach_________________________________________________ 13 Organization Capital model______________________________________________ 13 Main variables________________________________________________________ 14 Information required___________________________________________________ 15 Future research guidelines on intangibles___________________________________ 16

4. WORK PLAN

Stages that are expected to lead__________________________________________ 16 Work plan and schedule________________________________________________ 17

5. INDEX EXPECTED FOR THE THESIS DESSERTATION_____________ 18

6. BIBLIOGRAPHY______________________________________________ 19

2

____Intangible assets: effect of the organizational capital in mature and innovative sectors – Luis Blanco – 2010____

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 General overview of intangible assets

There are several studies trying to explain why there are some firms that have unusual economic growth compared to other firms involved in the very same context such as, Lev et al (2009), Grant (2000), Barney (1991), Andreou et al (2007). This research explores this scope and there is a recent field that is called intangible assets that may explain part if this expected answer.

It is feasible to recognize firms that have abnormal performance through the sales, size and amount of assets among other economic indicators. But it is not so clear in the literature how to measure the difference between the value of some firms that are in the same sector with similar characteristics but with different performance, according to Lev et al (2009).

Companies have been increasing their investments in innovation due the globalization that one process/product can be easily transmitted from one place in the world to another almost immediately. Also deregulation in almost all world has been growing, there is an open door to experiment on new procedures due the opened barriers. On the other hand, technological changes allow improving almost every possible way to get better options to develop a firm. Baruch Lev (2001) states that intangibles are the primary driver of the supply of innovation, this has brought intangibles to the centre stage in the real world business.

The economic development based in knowledge caused that firms create value. Intangible assets have been studied for the last 30 years, in the 80’s became essential the creation of intangible industries (software, internet, communication services, etc.) having a recent development in the last decade according to Lev (2001), Lev et al (2009), Cañibano et al (2000), Hall (1993). Therefore, it is required to study the existing implications in the intangibles even if there is some confusion at measuring; in this sense an effective measurement can explain a significant effect of the intangibles on the firm performance. In this project we will try to emphasize that companies that invest in

3

____Intangible assets: effect of the organizational capital in mature and innovative sectors – Luis Blanco – 2010____

intangibles assets will have better results compared with other enterprises, as Galbreath (2005) pointed out before.

Cohen and Levinthal (19) pointed out that the source of value is not the production but the intangibles assets creation and manipulation. Lev (2001) classifies in four groups the intangibles in discovery/learning, costumer-related, human-resource and organization capital.

Lev (2001) states that organization capital can achieve efficiency and can create value far exceed the value creation ability of physical assets; organization capital enables superior operating, investment and innovation performance, represented by the agglomeration of technologies, business practices, processes and designs.

The Resource Based View Theory (RBV) states that if there is a sustained competitive advantage a firm will be successful when all resources are used (Barney, 1991). The intangibles may represent an important source of this competitive advantage and this might explain the existing growing firms in some sectors that use this kind of resource.

According to Grant (2000) the source of disturbance that creates the opportunity for competitive advantage may be internal as well as external. Internal change is generated by innovation that not only creates competitive advantage, but provides a basis for overturning the competitive advantages of other firm. Innovative strategies involve new approaches to competing within an industry and these strategies tend to be the basis of most outstanding success in most industries. Malerba (2002) states that sectors provide a key level of analysis for economics, differences can be emphasized across industries in the contexts in which economic agents act.

Even if the main enterprises in any economy can designate some of their investments to intangible assets; the proposed research tries to demonstrate that those firms that are located in some innovative sectors such as drugs, aircraft and communication services will get more benefits from intangible assets compared with those who are located in the mature sectors like yarn and thread mills, crude petroleum and natural gas.

4

____Intangible assets: effect of the organizational capital in mature and innovative sectors – Luis Blanco – 2010____

1.2 Main objective

The aim in this project is to provide evidence of the intangible assets’ importance in the firms by analyzing the organization capital in mature and innovative sectors and to show the existing differences between them.

1.3 Main objective’s relevance and support

Using a methodology developed by Lev et al (2009) the organization capital at some geographical levels will be analysed, trying to explore some similarities and differences between them. It is interesting to realize if there are some geographical boundaries may affect the level of importance and subsequent impact of a given variable, in this particular scenario the intangible assets. The project wants to find the relevance in organization capital in different sectors besides remark some differences among them; sectors with innovative characteristics may have more organization capital than those who are mature, even if those that are not innovative present some level of intangible assets.

Empirical results will be presented regarding new geographical area (Spain, Europe and North American/Asian/European Region) and temporal period of time than it was used by Lev et al (2009). Mudambi (2008) proposed that it may exist an intangible geography were there are some areas specialized in this topic, we want to find out evidence on this area through an analysis in the sectors.

This project will be presented with the following structure. In the first section the current status of the intangible assets will be presented, the description of the main concepts, introduction of the RVB as the theoretical framework in this study, specific objectives considered and expected contributions in this thesis dissertation. In the second part the methodology will be presented with the model developed by Lev et al (2009), the main variables, the required information for the analysis and the discussions expected and future research guidelines on intangibles. In the following part the provisional working plan will be presented with the tentative index. Finally the bibliography used to this doctoral thesis proposal will de presented.

5

____Intangible assets: effect of the organizational capital in mature and innovative sectors – Luis Blanco – 2010____

2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 Problem statement

Tangible sources such as fixed and working capital become less important to the firm in terms of their contribution to the value added and as a basis for competitive advantage, Grant (2000).

Lev et al (2009) make a distinction that intangible assets are the hallmark of modern economies and business enterprises represents a principal roll in the modern economy. Gu and Lev (2001) show that intangibles improve significantly the association between capital market values and accounting –based measures of performance and value. Cañibano et al (2000) states that there is no agreement about intangible definition and classification. Corona (2009), intangible assets are important to modern economies, companies use some intangible measures to evaluate management. But is it s not easy to verify in contractual purposes. Abbody and Lev (1998) measure the firm results in a Software company with intangible assets.

Lev and Zarowin (1998) remark that finance doesn’t reflect the real economic situation in the firm. Nowadays the alliances, joint ventures and fusions and acquisitions may provide advantages from the intangible assets. Belkahui (1992), intangibles are those who don’t have physical constitution. Hendriksen (1992) lack of physical substance is not the main difference between tangibles and intangible assets. Stickney and Wiel (1994) define the intangibles as those assets that generate future benefits without physical form. IAS 38 of 2009 defines intangible as identify asset without physical nature used in production product or service supply, but are fundamental in the firm.

A framework was developed by Lev (2001) and classifies intangible assets in the following groups:

1. Discovery/learning intangibles- technology, know how, patents and other assets emanating from discovery (R&D) and learning processes of business enterprises, universities and national laboratories.

6

____Intangible assets: effect of the organizational capital in mature and innovative sectors – Luis Blanco – 2010____

2. Costumer related intangibles- brands, trademarks and unique distribution channels which create abnormal earnings.

3. Human resource intangibles- specific human resource practices such as training and compensations systems, which enhance employee productivity and reduce turnover. 4. Organization capital. Unique structural and organisational designs and business processes generating sustainable competitive advantages.

Organization capital are those highly valuable intangible that develop linkage among parties to the industrial era, vertically-integrated companies were mostly physical the current essential linkages between firms and their suppliers and costumer are mostly virtual, Lev (2001).

Organization capital is the ability of firms to deliver and sustain super-normal performance, Lev et al (2009). In this research is said that terms like firm’s reputation, value of leadership, capacity to innovate, etc capture certain elements of organizational capital but little terms of operating measures of organization capital and empirical evidence is available. Figure 1 explains the relationship among the groups were organization capital links the intangible assets to the other resources used by a firm.

Figure 1. Intangibles classification proposed by Lev (2001)

Discovery/learning

intangibles

Costumer related intangibles

Organization capital

Human resource intangibles

Own elaboration

7

____Intangible assets: effect of the organizational capital in mature and innovative sectors – Luis Blanco – 2010____

Measuring the organization capital is a guideline that is pretty new. We will present results on intangible assets importance for a new level structure (Spain, European Union and a comparison between North American, Asian and European region) because this issue was already studied in the United States of America.

Malerba (2002) considered that the there might be sector boundaries static and delimited in terms of similarity in demand, strategic interdependence but differences in the equilibrium structure of sectors have been identified as determined by underlying the patterns of technology and demand. He writes in this research that there have been studies in the industrial economics examined the structure of sectors in terms of concentration, vertical integration, diversification, and so on. He also states that analysing sectors is a useful tool in various aspects; being in this research the identification of the factors affecting the performance and competitiveness of firms and countries.

Malerba (2002) classifies the basic elements of sectors: products, agents, knowledge and learning processes, basic technologies, inputs, demand, and related links and complementarities, mechanisms of interactions both firms and outside firms, processes if competition and selection and finally, institutions.

According to the definition proposed by Malerba (2002) sectors have a knowledge base, demand technologies and inputs. The agents composing the different sectors are individuals and organizations, are characterized by specific learning processes, competencies, beliefs, objectives, organizational structure and behaviours and interact though processes of communication, exchange, cooperation, competition and command processes, which are shaped by institutions. Malerba (2007) claim that the analysis of the relationship between innovation and industrial dynamics are concerned in terms of industry of life cycle and industry evolution.

Grant (2000) states that every industry develops in an unique way, it is possible to identify some patterns that are the result of common driving forces. If we want to identify these patterns it is required to classify. In this book innovative industry are emerging industries that technology is the driving force of competition, application to create new products, enhancement to existing products and application of technology to

8

____Intangible assets: effect of the organizational capital in mature and innovative sectors – Luis Blanco – 2010____

business process. He also classifies mature industry to hose firms that are focused on opportunities cost-based factors, less scope in differentiation, highly developed industry infrastructure.

2.2 Conceptual and Theoretical Framework: Resource Based View

In strategic management strategy has been study it he internal and external resources in a firm. Hoskisson et al (1999) the strategy was previously studied focusing in internal resources such as information process, intern characteristics and hierarchical structure. Barney (1991) states that the firm generates sustained competitive advantage. His framework suggest that firms obtain these advantages by implementing strategies that exploit their internal strengths, through responding to environmental opportunities, while neutralizing external threats and avoiding internal weaknesses. That framework can be analyzed from different context and Barney settle a relationship between resource heterogeneity and immobility, value, rareness, imperfect imitability and substitutability and sustained competitive advantage. Flatt and Kowalczyk (2008) developed certain questions about the differences between successful firms in certain environment.

Resources represent one of the main variables to get this competitive advantage. Grant (2000) and Hall in (1992) classified the resources and took those who are not physical into intangible assets. In order to make a resource analysis of the firm, it is required to examine the relationship among resources, capabilities and competitive advantage in the firm. Grant (2000) classifies three principal types of resources into tangible, intangible and human resources. In this research it is established relationships among these groups. We are focused only in intangibles resources.

Becker and Gerhart (1996) develop a research on the performance impact in the competitive advantage; Lahtinen (2007) analyse the wood industry in the impact of the tangible and intangible values linked to the RBV. Galbreath (2005) provide evidence that the intangibles impact in the firm’s success. Cañibano et al (2000) recognize that intangible assets are important in the firm and if there is no investment on them the competitive advantage may be decreased.

9

____Intangible assets: effect of the organizational capital in mature and innovative sectors – Luis Blanco – 2010____

After 10 years of his article about firm resources and sustained competitive advantage Barney et al (2001) suggest that RBV has been an important reference to give significance to the intangibles assets. Carmeli and Tishler (2004) considered that RBV has been explained difference in the firms’ results due the intangible assets and the performance.

2.3 Specific Objectives in the research

In this research three specific objectives are developed; each one represents one chapter in the thesis.

The first research question is:

Is the organization capital representative in Spanish industries located in innovative areas compared to those located in mature sectors given certain period of time?

1. To examine the effects of the organization capital in large Spanish firms during 1998– 2008, providing a comparison among mature and innovative sectors.

In the first objective the impact of the mature and innovative sectors will be analysed; with the most relevant information according a national structure; therefore we can move to the following level, by comparing different structures at the very same time. As Malerba (2002) states, much more research is needed on this issue, one useful starting point is to asses how much the features and dynamics of the same sectors are similar.

The second research question is:

Is the organizational capital representative in countries subscribed in the European Union industries located in innovative areas compared to those located in mature sectors given certain period of time?

2. To analyse the organization capital in the European Union during 1998 – 2008, providing comparison between mature and innovative sectors. Providing evidence if there are proximities or differences than those who were obtained in one specific country.

10

____Intangible assets: effect of the organizational capital in mature and innovative sectors – Luis Blanco – 2010____

It is important to make a study exploring the organization capital in different countries that have a similar context even if the economy, government, level of education varies from one country to other. It might be possible to find that there are similar or different behaviour in some specific sectors.

Probably the physical proximity can influence the level of use of organization capital among its region. We are going to analyze the European Union due it level of influence in the world. Malerba (2002) as mentioned before empirical research on the sectoral patterns of innovative activities in terms of innovative concentration, technological entry and innovative turbulence has confirmed that mayor differences exists across sectors, but, the same sector these patterns are rather similar across countries.

The final research question is:

Is the organization capital representative in different regions: Asia, Europe and North America during 1998 – 2008, providing comparison between mature and innovative sectors.

3. To analyze the organization capital in three main regions: Asia, Europe and North America during 1998-2008, providing comparison between mature and innovative sectors. Providing evidences if there are proximities or differences between regions or corporations that are located in these regions at the same time.

As it is stated in this proposal; geographical boundaries are an important element to be considered in most analysis of industries but no always national boundaries are most appropriate ones for an examination of the structure, agent dynamics of these systems.

International competition in a global economy is forcing the companies to think and to act globally; therefore technologies have become crucial to the firms today. Expansions into new geographical areas increase all type of administrative decisions; administrative performance and it might have less efficient adoption of multidivisional structure. We want to get evidence of these differences between regions.

11

____Intangible assets: effect of the organizational capital in mature and innovative sectors – Luis Blanco – 2010____

2.4 Contribution expected through this thesis dissertation

Integrate intangible assets into the formulation and execution of accounting-finance research and security analysis to the academic field. We want to help the consolidation of intangible assets as an important variable to the firms; specifically this research attempt to strength the organization capital as a measure of intangible asset through the use of the model proposed by Lev et al (2009). Specifically, we want to support the methodology that Lev et al has developed and apply a possible form to validate this measure. This research wants to present the existing differences between the sectors and apply them through the time.

We expect that this study will provide multidimensional, integrated and dynamic view of sectors at different levels of study. This type of analysis is expected to be expanded in order to study the role of some sectors affecting some basic characteristics of the structure and dynamics of the two sector classification locally (Spain), regionally (Europe) and a comparison of the three main regions in the world (Europe, North America and Asia).

This research proposal can contribute not only in the academic field but in some other areas that will improve a better understanding of the firm such as businesspeople, policymakers.

The knowledge can be transmitted to those businesspeople who are interested in develop a better way to bring wealth to the firm by planning, implementing and developing a business plan based on intangible assets.

Policymakers can get a better understanding of intangible assets, providing empirical evidence they can create some policies pointing out the enforcement of intangible measures that can improve the results at different levels: sectors, firm and specific projects.

12

____Intangible assets: effect of the organizational capital in mature and innovative sectors – Luis Blanco – 2010____

3. METHODOLOGY AND EFFECTS THAT ARE EXPECTED IN THE RESEARCH

3.1 Methodology approach

The first approach of this research is to design an effective review of the present state of art in the intangible assets. ABI inform was the principal source of information by identify important papers that allows to get into the field; we could recognize the main literature in the subject and look into some seminal works that were books mainly, articles in journals and the IAS 2009 as the accounting framework followed in the intangibles field. Some journals correspond to the JCR ranking, but we included some publications and books that not are in this index because there might be the possibility to exclude any essential research, Watson and Webster (2002).

3.2 Organization capital model

This thesis proposal will use a model developed by Lev et al (2009) to estimate the organization capital. In their research they provide preliminary evidence on the role of this asset in market value, the fundament of this methodology was developed by Lev and Radhakishnan in 2005, the present methodology has been improved by incorporating a firms’ potential to save operating cost as well.

Measuring variables is hard to define because not all firms have the required information such as employee cost compensation, which would be one element of organizational capital. On the other hand, Lev et al (2009) pointed out that some enterprises have superior business procedures and culture enhancing the innovation capabilities; there are different roads that lead to a sustained superior performance. In the same research they state that investment on organization capital is not fully tracked by firms and even if the firms have information about innovation, such as research and development there is not usually information available on these topics. Therefore, measure organization capital based on inputs (investment) is not feasible.

SALEit = aOit PPEitb1it EMPitb2it eit

13

____Intangible assets: effect of the organizational capital in mature and innovative sectors – Luis Blanco – 2010____

3.3 Main Variables

Dependent Variable

SALEit is the revenues of firm in i in year t

Independent variables

PPEit is net plant, property and equipment EMPit is number employees eit is an error term

aOit is the productivity parameter; modelling a function of the instrumental variable SGAit as follows:

log(aOit) = bOst + bOst log(SGAit)

SGAit is the amortized sales, general and administrative capital

log(SALEit/SALEit-1) = bOt + bOst log(SGAit/SGAit-1) + b1t log(PPEit/PPEit-1) + b2t

log(EMPit/EMPit-1) + log(eit/eit-1)

This equation is estimated annually and cross-sectionally for each industry. The coefficient estimates indicate the average contributions of the organization capital to revenue growth. The coefficient estimates provides the industry average efficiency Lev et al (2009).

3.4 Required Information

In order to get the required information we will get hold of the following criteria: Sample

The larger firms will be analyzed that are in the stock market.

It is feasible to get better and detailed information from the largest Spanish firms in order to get accurate information and we can control the main contingencies. Spain is a representative economy in the following level of analysis. This country may provide the useful results before going to the subsequent level.

14

____Intangible assets: effect of the organizational capital in mature and innovative sectors – Luis Blanco – 2010____

For the second level we will use Europe because we want to explore if there is certain level of regular behaviour between their integrants of if there are difference between them caused probably by differences in economics, certain clusters in some sectors in some specific areas among others.

For the third level we will compare the main three regions in the world: Asia taking the main countries, Europe with their respective states and North America due its impact in the economy. The figure 2 provides better description according to the area studied.

Figure 2. Areas to be explored

Item

Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4

Item

Local Level Regional level World Level

Description Spain

European Union Asia Europe North America

Own elaboration

Sectors of productivity

All sector of productivity except financial and insurance firms due they might affect the results, sue the high level of intangible capital involved in their productivity.

We will create two main groups classifying the mature and innovative sectors. Some firms may be excluded if they are not clearly separated and can be classified in any of the two groups Database

Osiris database will be used because the information required is available at the different level of study.

Type of research

Quantitative research through panel data analysis and multiple regressions.

15

____Intangible assets: effect of the organizational capital in mature and innovative sectors – Luis Blanco – 2010____

3.5 Discussions and future research guidelines on intangibles

This research wants to provide evidence of the importance of the intangible assets by the organization capital. Using the methodology developed by Let et al (2009) we want to take a step beyond this study by exploring the different implications related in different space and time; providing the existing differences in the mature and innovative sectors.

Analysing sectors make take different features in different countries, and in different time; also in continuously changing environments with historical process going on and embedded in different countries, there is no way to identify just one unique results measuring the organization capital. This doctoral thesis proposal is challenging because we have identify in the literature that intangible expect abnormal results in the firm; and one way to identify this maximization of results is the efficiency. We may want to link in the future this other field in order to provide better understanding about these results.

We may use Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) which is well known methodology developed by Charnes, Cooper and Rhodes. Nowadays there are several studies about frontiers estimations of efficiency in the private sector, public sector and in academic research; DEA is recognized by its applicability and strengths to model operational models Coelli at al (2005).

4. WORKING PLAN

4.1 Stages that are expected to lead

This project is the structure of a formal proposition developing certain field in accounting and finance. We expect that this work achieve certain level that ends with the thesis dissertation. In order to get there we want to build a structure that allows getting the Master degree, and by developing each chapter we expect to have at least 3 main articles that will be trying to be published in accounting and finance journals. Depending on the results obtained and its evidence founded these studies will be sent to a related journal specialized in the firm.

16

____Intangible assets: effect of the organizational capital in mature and innovative sectors – Luis Blanco – 2010____

Activity J FChapter 1 Introduction elaboration Review and final corrections Chapter 2 Theoretical survey

Data recollection and analysis Elaboration

Corrections and final version

review

Conference of Preliminary Papers Pilot Research Work Elaboration Pilot Research Work Presentation Chapter 3 Theoretical survey

Data recollection and analysis Elaboration

Corrections and final version

review

Chapter 4 Theoretical survey

Data recollection and analysis Elaboration

Corrections and final version

review

Chapter 5 Final conclusions elaboration

Review and final corrections

Tutors' final comments and corrections Doctoral dissertation

4.2 Work plan and Schedule

M

A

M 2010 2011 2012 J J ASONDJ F MAMJ J ASONDJ FMAMJ J A S

____Intangible assets: effect of the organizational capital in mature and innovative sectors – Luis Blanco – 2010____

5. INDEX EXPECTED FOR THE THESIS DESSERTATION

Chapter 1. Introduction to intangible assets

Chapter 2. The effects on innovative sectors compared to the mature sectors in organization capital, evidence in Spain from 1998 to 2008.

Introduction

Theoretical framework Methodology Results

Discussions and conclusions Future guidelines and limitations

Chapter 3. Organization Capital in European Union, a contrast between their integrants during 1998-2008 in mature and innovative sectors

Introduction

Theoretical framework Methodology Results

Discussions and conclusions Future guidelines and limitations

Chapter 4. Corporative or regional strategy in organization capital; evidence from 1998-2008

Introduction

Theoretical framework Methodology Results

Discussions and conclusions Future guidelines and limitations

Chapter 5. Main conclusions on the explored field

***titles are not definitive, these are only proposals

Bibliography

____Intangible assets: effect of the organizational capital in mature and innovative sectors – Luis Blanco – 2010____

6. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aboody, D., Lev, B., (1998). “The value relevance of intangibles: the Case of Software

Capitalization”, Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 36.

Andreou A., Green A., Stankosky M. (2007). “A framework of intangible valuation

areas and antecedents”. Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 8 (1): 52-75.

Barney, J (1991). “Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage” Journal of

Management, Vol. 17, No. 1.

Barney, J., Wright, M., Ketcher, D., (2001). “The resource-based view of the form: Ten

years after 1991” Journal of Management Vol. 27.

Becker B. y Gerhart B. (2006). “The impact of human resource management on

organizational performance: progress and prospects”. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39(4): 779-799.

Belkaoui, A., (1992).“Accounting Theory” London, Academic press.

Cañibano, L., García-Ayuso, M., Sánchez, P., “Accounting for Intangibles: A Literature

Review” Journal of Accounting Literature, Vol. 19, 2000.

Carmeli, A., Tishler, A., (2004). “The relationship between intangible and

organizational elements and organizational performance”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 25.

Coelli, T., O’Donnell, C. and Battese G. (2005). “An Introduction to Efficiency and

Productivity Analysis”. Springer 2nd Edition.

Cohen, W., Levinthal, D., (19). “Innovation and learning: The two faces of R&D,

The Economic Journal, Vol. 99.

Corona, C., (2009). “Dynamic performance measurement with intangible assets”

Review Accounting Studies, Vol. 14.

Flatt, S. y Kowalczyk S.(2008). “Creating competitive advantage through intangible

assets: the direct and indirect effects of corporate culture and reputation”. Advances in Competitiveness Research. Consultado el 14 de Enero del 2009 en: http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/191014861_1.html

Galbreath J. (2005). “Which resources matter the most to firm success? An exploratory

study of resource-based theory. Technovation, Vol. 25: 979-987.

Grant, R.M. (2000). “Contemporary Strategy Analysis”. Blackwell business.

Gu, F. and Lev, B., (2004) “The information content of royalty income” Accounting

Horizons, Vol. 18, No. 1.

Hall, R., (1992). “The strategic analysis of intangible resources” Strategic management

Journal, Vol. 13.

Hall R. (1993). “A Framework Linking Intangible Resources and Capabiliites to

Sustainable Competitive Advantage”. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 14 (8): 670-618.

Hendriksen, E., (1992). “Accounting Theory”. Burr Ridge, Irwin.International

Accounting Standard 38; (2009). IASCF.

Hoskisson, R.; Hitt, M.; Wan, W.; Yiu, D. (1999). “Theory and Research in Strategic

Management: Swings of a Pendulum”. Journal of Management, Vol. 25 (3): 417-456.

Lahtinen K. (2007). “Linking Resource-Based View with business economics of

woodworking industry: earlier findings and future insight. Silva Fennica, Vol. 41(1):149-165.

Lev, B., (2001).”Intangibles: Management, Measurement and Reporting”. Brooking

Institution Press.

19

____Intangible assets: effect of the organizational capital in mature and innovative sectors – Luis Blanco – 2010____

Lev, B., Radhakrishnan, S. & Zhang, W., (2009). ”Organizational Capital”, Journal of

Accounting, Finance and Business Studies ABACUS, Vol. 45 No.3.

Lev, B., Zarowin, P., (1998) “The boundaries of financial reporting and how to extend

them” New York University.

Malerba, F., (2002). “Sectorial systems of innovation and production”, Research Policy,

Vol. 31, 247-2.

Malerba, F., (2007). “Innovation and dynamics and evolution of industries: Progress

and challenges” , International Journal of Industrial Organization, Vol. 25, 675-699.

Mudambi, R., (2008). “Location, control and innovation in knowledge intensive

industries”. Journal of Economic Geography, Vol. 8, 699-725.

Stickey, C., Weil, R., (1994). “Financial Accounting”. Forth Worth, The Dryden Press. Watson, R & Webster, J., (2002). “Analyzing the past to prepare for the Future: Writing

a Literature Review”, MIS Quarterly Vol. 26 No. 2.

20