Journal of Intellectual Capital

The third stage of IC: towards a new IC future and beyond

John Dumay
Article information:
To cite this document:
John Dumay, (2013),"The third stage of IC: towards a new IC future and beyond", Journal of Intellectual
Capital, Vol. 14 Iss 1 pp. 5 - 9
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14691931311288986
Downloaded on: 30 October 2016, At: 21:03 (PT)
Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 21:03 30 October 2016 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 25 other documents.

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1374 times since 2013*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2013),"Intellectual capital research: a critical examination of the third stage", Journal of Intellectual Capital,
Vol. 14 Iss 1 pp. 10-25 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14691931311288995
(2013),"IC 21: reflections from 21 years of IC practice and theory", Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 14 Iss
1 pp. 163-172 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14691931311289075

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:273599 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1469-1930.htm

GUEST EDITORIAL The third

stage of IC
The third stage of IC: towards
a new IC future and beyond
John Dumay 5
Discipline of Accounting, University of Sydney Business School,
Sydney, Australia

Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to reflect on the overall contribution made by the papers
Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 21:03 30 October 2016 (PT)

presented in this special edition of the Journal of Intellectual Capital.

Design/methodology/approach This article is an editorial based on the authors reflections of the
papers presented in this special edition.
Findings Intellectual capital (IC) has a future, based not only on the third stage of IC research,
which strengthens IC practices inside organisations, but also on a complementary fourth stage which
develops IC eco-systems.
Originality/value the papers presented ground the third stage of IC research as a legitimate
research undertaking, while at the same time recognising that we need to extend our IC missionary
work beyond the boundaries of the organisation, and into the environment where organisations exist.
Keywords IC third stage, IC fourth stage, IC missionaries, IC research, IC practice, IC education,
Intellectual capital, Research
Paper type Viewpoint

Two previous special editions of the Journal of Intellectual Capital (JIC) inspired me to
suggest this special edition. The first, called IC at the crossroads theory and
research (JIC, 2004, Vol. 4 No. 2) claimed that awareness of the importance of IC has
been created and now the role of researchers as well as practitioners [was] to move to
the next level (Marr and Chatzkel, 2004, p. 224). The IC literature identifies these levels
as distinct stages of developing knowledge about IC. The first stage was raising
awareness and the second stage was to make IC visible through the creation of
guidelines and standards (Petty and Guthrie, 2000, p. 162).
Subsequently, a second special edition called Intellectual capital: becoming critical
(JIC, 2006, Vol. 7 No. 1) built upon the concept of IC at the crossroads by examining IC
through a critical management studies (CMS) lens. As ODonnell et al. (2006, p. 5)
explain, one of these roads takes a critical stance and the purpose of both the CMS stream
and this special issue is to initiate some exploratory discourse on IC from this perspective.
Seven years have now passed since this second special edition, and there is evidence
of a growing critical literature about IC. As a result, a recent review and critique in the
field of IC accounting research (ICAR), Guthrie et al. (2012) demonstrated how ICAR
has moved from what Petty and Guthrie (2000) described as stage one and stage two
research, establishing and developing ICAR as a field and legitimising ICA as an area
of multi-disciplinary and multi-focused research. From this, they argued for a third
stage of IC research based on a critical and performative analysis of IC practices in Journal of Intellectual Capital
Vol. 14 No. 1, 2013
action. Thus, the question to be continued to be explored in this special edition of the pp. 5-9
JIC is How is IC? rather than What is IC? (ODonnell et al., 2006, p. 7). Asking How r Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1469-1930
is IC? is more revealing because it addresses the praxis of implementing IC, rather DOI 10.1108/14691931311288986
 JIC than recreating a static representation of IC found in many current IC frameworks, and
14,1 their associated theory or theories (Dumay, 2009, p. 194).
The papers in this special edition, address the third stage of IC research by
investigating the current status of the IC research (Dumay and Garanina, 2013), how
learning can build a new theoretical basis for understanding IC research and
practice (Yu, 2013), present case-studies and reflections of implementing IC in practice
6 (Chiucchi, 2013; de Martini and Poalini, 2013; Henry, 2013; Wasiluk, 2013), investigate
intellectual liabilities (Giuliani, 2013) and how IC can be utilised in the class room
(Oliver, 2013). To close of the special edition, a commentary from one of the
grandfathers of IC, Leif Edvinsson, reflects on 21 years of IC theory and practice, along
with his vision of what the future holds for IC.
When I reflect on the papers in this special edition, two things stand out. First, there
are several papers from authors who have recently completed their doctoral theses
Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 21:03 30 October 2016 (PT)

(Yu, 2013; Henry, 2013; Wasiluk, 2013) representing an emerging new breed of IC
researchers. Thus, the future for IC research is looking promising (see Dumay, 2012b).
Second is the diverse range of locations and situations where the authors have learned
from getting their hands dirty by working in or with organisations that have
mobilised IC in practice. Thus, the future of IC practice is also alive and well.
In presenting the special edition, I have attempted to place the papers in a logical
order. The first paper (Dumay and Garanina, 2013) is a follow up to the research
I published with James Guthrie and Federica Ricceri (Guthrie et al., 2012) reflecting the
status of IC accounting research. In this paper, we find evidence of the third stage of IC
research; however, many researchers appear caught in an evaluatory trap (Olson et al.,
2001) whereby researchers appear stuck in an ostensive approach (see Mouritsen,
2006) characteristic of second stage ICR (see Petty and Guthrie, 2000). The paper also
identifies how a dominance structure (Facione, 2007, p. 17) affects many IC researchers
and suggests that they need to break free from the dominance of accounting practice
before they can understand and realise the potential of IC.
The second paper by Ai Yu and Patrick Humphreys (2013) represents what I believe
is an innovative way of breaking away from the evaluatory trap and offers how we
can break free from the dominance of IC accounting. Here, Yu proposes transforming
(not replacing) the measurement focus associated with IC accounting and the previous
stages of IC by utilising a learning focus examining the flow of IC. While Yu offers us a
new IC framework, it develops insights into IC practices, rather than providing another
prescriptive IC accounting framework.
The third and fourth papers (Chiucchi, 2013; Demartini and Poalini, 2013) are from
female Italian researchers signifying that IC research is not entirely a male dominated
regime. Over the last few years, I have also noticed how Italy has become the new, hot
bed of IC research, especially aimed at working side by side with managers inside
organisations in developing IC practices. More significantly, both papers show how
interventions by researchers, helps managers learn about and mobilise IC. I have been
a strong supporter of interventionist and action research (Dumay, 2010), because it
closely matches my previous experience as a business consultant, whereby I would
always leave knowledge for the client to work with after I finished my engagement.
When I joined academia, the look and do not touch approach to case study research,
which I believe is typical of most prior IC research (with notable exceptions), perplexed
me. These two papers challenge the look and do not touch approach, offering
prominent examples of how it is possible to engage with organisations and develop
research outcomes, as well as organisational outcomes.
 The next two papers, move from analysing interventions, to how different industry The third
sectors utilise IC. Both also deal with how IC can be applied to deal with contemporary stage of IC
social and economic issues. In the paper by Henry (2013), he examines the impact of the
recession on the IC of firms in the UK engineering sector. Here, he finds that a recession
has many negative effects on the elements of IC including reduction in employment,
underinvestment in infrastructure, reduced trust and increased opportunism in
relationships. However, he also identifies how IC has the potential to be the deciding 7
factor in surviving difficult market condition. Thus, Henrys path beyond Chatzkels
(2004) crossroads is the establishment of IC as a credible management tool which can
help organisations survive difficult economic conditions.
The next paper by Wasiluk (2013), draws parallels between the current research on
corporate sustainability (CS) and IC. She argues that by applying a performative
approach, as advocated by the third stage of IC research to CS, businesses can move
Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 21:03 30 October 2016 (PT)

beyond the eco-efficiency stage of CS which utilises the business case for sustainability
(sustainability equals greater profits). She advocates a move to a more ecologically and
eco-justice-informed approach (see Gray, 2006) which promotes the sustainability of the
eco-system in which the organisation exists, rather than just the organisation itself.
The next paper by Giuliani (2013), critically deals with what I would consider one of
the most under researched or more realistically, avoided, topics in the IC literature, that
of intellectual liabilities. Giulianis approach is refreshing because he directly tackles
the issue by recognising that IC can create, but also destroy, value. This is a brave
position to take considering the positive spin that is often preached about the benefits
that accrue to managing IC which are often empirically unproven (see Dumay, 2012a).
This implies that managers must monitor and manage intellectual liabilities in order to
control the possible negative effects generated by IC.
The last of the empirical papers in this special edition is by a colleague at the
University of Sydney, Gary Oliver (2013). Gary and I have worked together for five
years now, and he has been instrumental in the way I think about and practice teaching
in the classroom. This is Garys research passion alongside knowledge management
and IC. When, I sent Gary the call for papers, he came up with the innovative idea of
looking at IC from within the context of the classroom, which I encouraged him to
pursue. I think this paper is ground breaking for two reasons. First, it shows that IC
theory can be applied to address and resolve many practical issues we face regardless
of the context. It removes the narrow view linking IC to creating monetary value, by
showing the value of education, and it shows how collaborative bottom-up approaches
to developing IC can be effective as opposed to the ostensive, top-down approaches of
ICs second stage.
Second it highlights my new found view that one of the problems we face with
spreading the word of IC, is that we do too much preaching, and not enough educating.
As Oliver (2013) notes it is possible to educate so IC is created without the students
being formally aware of its extent. My view is that most of us involved in researching
IC often preach about IC rather than help develop its practice. Leif Edvinsson
recently invited me to give a presentation at Heidelberg University for a meeting
of the New Club of Paris[1], discussing The next generation for IC/Intangibles
Reporting. During the presentation, I offered a critique of most academics
involvement in IC, via an analogy. I identified all of those present in the room as being
inside the IC Cathedral where we were the Cardinals and Bishops. The meeting, in
my mind, was about preaching to the converted, rather than changing the hearts and
minds of those in practice.
 JIC In offering the critique, I also offered a way forward by advocating that we must
14,1 stop preaching and become IC missionaries. The word missionary, derived from the
Latin word missionem, means the act of sending. One key activity of missionary
work is sending missionaries out, spreading the word through education and this
educational approach is lacking, in many attempts at spreading the IC message. Thus,
I advocate we need to rethink the preaching approach and restart by teaching business
8 educators about IC, because the IC vocabulary does not seem to have become
entrenched in business school teaching today. This is because business schools still
seem to be teaching industrial-age strategy, based on creating economic value through
competitive positioning (Porter, 1980), rather than knowledge-age strategic thinking
which advocates knowledge sharing and collaboration as keys to value creation. Until
we become IC missionaries, and change the way we educate new business leaders, can
we ever hope that the concept of IC will become an entrenched part of managing
Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 21:03 30 October 2016 (PT)

organisations.
The last paper in this special edition, is a commentary from Leif Edvinsson (2013),
who presents reflections on his 21 years of experience with IC. I invited Leif to write the
commentary because I believe he is still an IC visionary who works more as a
missionary than a preacher. Over the last year, we have met on several occasions
discussing the future of IC. From these conversations, we have toyed with the idea of a
fourth stage of IC research based on IC eco-systems of cities and nations (see Lin and
Edvinsson, 2009; Wasiluk, 2013) to complement (not oppose), the third stage of IC
research. An analogy, which I have used previously, is that of the canary in the
coal mine (Dumay et al., 2010, p. 544). The third stage of IC concentrates on building
strong organisations (beautiful canaries), while the fourth stage concentrates on
building strong economic, social and environmental eco-systems, where healthy
organisations can flourish. If we build strong organisations without also concentrating
on building a sustainable environment, surely the canaries will not be able to
survive. So on reflection, we need both, in order to progress beyond the crossroads to a
new IC-based future.
Note
1. See http://new-club-of-paris.org/

References
Chatzkel, J. (2004), Moving through the crossroads, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 5 No. 2,
pp. 337-9.
Chiucchi, M.S. (2013), Intellectual capital accounting in action: enhancing learning through
interventionist research, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 48-68.
Demartini, P. and Poalini, P. (2013), Implementing an IC framework in practice, Journal of
Intellectual Capital, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 69-83.
Dumay, J. (2009), Intellectual capital measurement: a critical approach, Journal of Intellectual
Capital, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 190-210.
Dumay, J. (2010), A critical reflective discourse of an interventionist research project,
Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 46-70.
Dumay, J. (2012a), Grand theories as barriers to using IC concepts, Journal of Intellectual
Capital, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 4-15.
Dumay, J. (2012b), IC is alive and well yet still seeking relevance, Electronic Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 208-11.
 Dumay, J. and Garanina, T. (2013), Intellectual capital research: a critical examination of the The third
third stage, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 10-25.
stage of IC
Dumay, J., Guthrie, J. and Farneti, F. (2010), GRI sustainability reporting guidelines for public
and third sector organisations: a critical review, Public Management Review, Vol. 13 No. 4,
pp. 531-48.
Edvinsson, L. (2013), IC 21 reflections from 21 years of IC practice and theory, Journal of
Intellectual Capital, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 163-72. 9
Facione, P.A. (2007), Critical thinking: what it is and why it counts, Insight Assessment,
available at: www.insightassessment.com/pdf_files/what&why2006.pdf
Giuliani, M. (2013), Not all sunshine and roses: intellectual liabilities in action, Journal of
Intellectual Capital, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 127-44.
Gray, R. (2006), Social, environmental and sustainability reporting and organisational value
creation? Whose value? Whose creation?, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,
Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 21:03 30 October 2016 (PT)

Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 793-819.

Guthrie, J., Ricceri, F. and Dumay, J. (2012), Reflections and projections: a decade of intellectual
capital accounting research, British Accounting Review, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 68-92.
Henry, L. (2013), Intellectual capital in a recession: evidence from UK SMEs, Journal of
Intellectual Capital, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 84-101.
Lin, C.Y.-Y. and Edvinsson, L. (2009), National Intellectual Capital: A Comparison of 40 Countries,
Springer, New York, NY.
Marr, B. and Chatzkel, J. (2004), Intellectual capital at the crossroads: managing, measuring, and
reporting of IC, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 224-9.
Mouritsen, J. (2006), Problematising intellectual capital research: ostensive versus performative
IC, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 820-41.
ODonnell, D., Henriksen, L.B. and Voelpel, S.C. (2006), Guest editorial: becoming critical on
intellectual capital, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 5-11.
Oliver, G. (2013), A micro intellectual capital knowledge flow model: a critical account of IC
inside the classroom, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 145-62.
Olson, O., Humphrey, C. and Guthrie, J. (2001), Caught in an evaluatory trap: a dilemma for
public services under NPFM, European Accounting Review, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 505-22.
Petty, R. and Guthrie, J. (2000), Intellectual capital literature review: measurement, reporting and
management, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 155-76.
Porter, M. (1980), Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industry and Competitors,
Free Press, New York, NY.
Wasiluk, K. (2013), Beyond eco-efficiency: understanding CS through the IC practice lens,
Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 102-26.
Yu, A. and Humphreys, P. (2013), From measuring to learning? Probing the evolutionary path of
IC research and practice, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 26-47.

Corresponding author
John Dumay can be contacted at: john.dumay@gmail.com

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
 This article has been cited by:

1. Marco Giuliani Department of Management, Universit Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy Maria
Serena Chiucchi Department of Management, Universit Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy Stefano
Marasca Department of Management, Universit Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy . 2016. A history
of intellectual capital measurements: from production to consumption. Journal of Intellectual Capital 17:3,
590-606. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
2. Gianpaolo Iazzolino Department of Mechanical, Energy and Management Engineering (DIMEG),
University of Calabri, Rende, Italy Domenico Laise Department of Computer, Control and Management
Engineering, University of Rome La Sapienza, Rome, Italy . 2016. Value creation and sustainability in
knowledge-based strategies. Journal of Intellectual Capital 17:3, 457-470. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
3. Ahmed HajiAbdifatah Abdifatah Ahmed Haji Abdifatah Ahmed Haji holds an MSc degree in Accounting
from the International Islamic University Malaysia. His research interests are in the areas of intellectual
capital and developments in corporate reporting. His recent papers appeared in peer-reviewed journals such
Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 21:03 30 October 2016 (PT)

as Journal of Intellectual Capital, Journal of Human Resource Costing & Accounting, International Journal
of Disclosure and Governance, Journal of Humanomics, Asian Review of Accounting, Managerial Auditing
Journal, Journal of Banking Regulation, International Journal of Managerial and Financial Accounting and
others. Department of Accounting, International Islamic University Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia .
2016. Trend of hidden values and use of intellectual capital information. Accounting Research Journal 29:1,
81-105. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
4. Maria Serena Chiucchi Department of Management, Universit Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy
Marco Montemari Department of Management, Universit Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy . 2016.
Investigating the fate of Intellectual Capital indicators: a case study. Journal of Intellectual Capital 17:2,
238-254. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
5. Peter Cleary Department of Accounting, Finance & Information Systems, University College Cork, Cork,
Ireland Martin Quinn Dublin City University Business School, Dublin, Ireland . 2016. Intellectual capital
and business performance. Journal of Intellectual Capital 17:2, 255-278. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
6. Marco Giuliani Department of Management, Universit Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy . 2016.
Sensemaking, sensegiving and sensebreaking. Journal of Intellectual Capital 17:2, 218-237. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
7. Dr Stefano Zambon John Dumay Macquarie University . 2016. A critical reflection on the future of
intellectual capital: from reporting to disclosure. Journal of Intellectual Capital 17:1, 168-184. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
8. Renata P. Dameri Department of Economics, University of Genova, Genova, Italy Francesca Ricciardi
Department of Business Economics, University of Verona, Verona, Italy . 2015. Smart city intellectual
capital: an emerging view of territorial systems innovation management. Journal of Intellectual Capital 16:4,
860-887. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
9. Alessandro Zardini Department of Business Administration, University of Verona, Verona, Italy Francesca
Ricciardi Department of Business Economics, University of Verona, Verona, Italy Cecilia Rossignoli
Department of Business Administration, University of Verona, Verona, Italy . 2015. The relational capital
of the IT department. Journal of Intellectual Capital 16:4, 835-859. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
10. Janice Tee Jeok Inn Graduate School of Business Administration, Kobe University, Kobe, Japan John
Dumay Department of Accounting and Corporate Governance, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
Katsuhiko Kokubu Graduate School of Business Administration, Kobe University, Kobe, Japan . 2015. A
 critical examination of implementing government sponsored intellectual capital management and reporting
programs for small and medium enterprises. VINE 45:2, 214-238. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
11. Ranjith Appuhami Department of Accounting and Corporate Governance, Macquarie University,
Sydney, Australia Mohammed Bhuyan Department of Accounting and Corporate Governance, Macquarie
University, Sydney, Australia . 2015. Examining the influence of corporate governance on intellectual
capital efficiency. Managerial Auditing Journal 30:4/5, 347-372. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
12. Alexander Serenko Faculty of Business Administration, Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, Canada John
Dumay Department of Accounting, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia . 2015. Citation classics
published in knowledge management journals. Part I: articles and their characteristics. Journal of Knowledge
Management 19:2, 401-431. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
13. Marco Giuliani Department of Management, Universit Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy . 2015.
Intellectual Capital dynamics: seeing them in practice through a temporal lens. VINE 45:1, 46-66.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 21:03 30 October 2016 (PT)

14. Marco Giuliani Department of Management, Universit Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy . 2015.
Rome wasnt built in a day reflecting on time, intellectual capital and intellectual liabilities. Journal of
Intellectual Capital 16:1, 2-19. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
15. Dr Francesco Schiavone Professor Marco Romano Marika Macchi Dipartimento di Scienze per lEconomia
e lImpresa, University of Florence, Florence, Italy Ugo Rizzo Department of Economics and Management,
University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy Laura Ramaciotti Department of Economics and Management,
University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy . 2014. From services dealers to innovation brokers. Journal of Intellectual
Capital 15:4, 554-575. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
16. Maria Serena Chiucchi, Marco Giuliani, Stefano Marasca. 2014. The design, implementation and use of
intellectual capital measurements: a case study. MANAGEMENT CONTROL :2, 143-168. [CrossRef]
17. Dumay John Department of Accounting & Corporate Governance, Faculty of Business & Economics,
Macquarie University, New South Wales, Australia . 2014. 15 years of the Journal of Intellectual Capital
and counting. Journal of Intellectual Capital 15:1, 2-37. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
18. John Dumay Accounting Department, University of Sydney Business School, Sydney, New South Wales,
Australia Jim Rooney Accounting Department, University of Sydney Business School, Sydney, New South
Wales, Australia Lisa Marini Accounting Department, University of Sydney Business School, Sydney, New
South Wales, Australia . 2013. An intellectual capital-based differentiation theory of innovation practice.
Journal of Intellectual Capital 14:4, 608-633. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
19. Federica De SantisDepartment of Management, Faculty of Economics G. Fu, Universita Politecnica
Delle Marche, Ancona, Italy Marco GiulianiDepartment of Management, Faculty of Economics G.
Fu, Universita Politecnica Delle Marche, Ancona, Italy. 2013. A look on the other side: investigating
intellectual liabilities. Journal of Intellectual Capital 14:2, 212-226. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]