Vol. 8 No. 3 (2020): Business & Management Studies: An International Journal
Articles

INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL CAPITALIZATION AND A CASE STUDY

PDF (Türkçe)
  • Kadir DAŞTAN,
  • Osman BAYRAKTAR
Kadir DAŞTAN
İstanbul Commerce University
Osman BAYRAKTAR
Assoc. Dr., İstanbul Commerce University
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v8i3.1478

Published 2020-09-25

Keywords

  • Intellectual Capital Investments Innovation Capitalization
  • Entelektüel Sermaye Yatırımlar Inovasyon Aktifleştirme

How to Cite

DAŞTAN, K., & BAYRAKTAR, O. (2020). INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL CAPITALIZATION AND A CASE STUDY. Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 8(3), 2546–2571. https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v8i3.1478

Abstract

1. LITERATURE SURVEY AND RESEARCH SUBJECT
Intellectual capital consists of human capital, customer capital and structural capital (Rodov & Leliaert, 2002). The most recent studies of intellectual capital were made by Schultz (1961) and Becker (1994). These reviews have been mainly within the framework of growth and investments. Dynamic elements of intellectual capital are education, health and labour transfers. Education is the main factor that makes people qualified and ensures high efficiency in the production of goods and services by increasing the number of qualified people in the society (Yücel, vd, 2015, s. 288).
1.1. RESEARCH PURPOSE AND IMPORTANCE
This study aims to present a practical example and suggestion about the capitalization of intellectual capital based on the literature. In company merger or acquisitions, decision-makers need to measure the intellectual capital of the business together with other resources. In this research, it is aimed to present an example regarding the measurement of intellectual capital.
1.2. CONTRIBUTION of the ARTICLE to the LITERATURE
In the practice example, it is shown how many human resource expenditures such as recruitment, education and social expenditures can be capitalized in the balance sheet with the methods of market value- book value, the value-added intellectual coefficient in case the legislation in our country is regulated, and the intellectual capital accumulation of the banks is revealed with the balance sheet analysis. The study is expected to make a theoretical contribution to the capitalization of intellectual capital in Turkish literature.
2. DESIGN AND METHOD
Although there are different approaches in the calculation of intellectual capital, there is no globally accepted method yet. Due to the parametric data of the intellectual added value coefficient methods, it was preferred to use the market value-book value, Tobin's q ratio method in this study. Tobin's q ratio, developed by James Tobin (1969), is calculated as X= Market Value / Asset Replacement Cost. In this formula, the market value is equal to the number of stocks across the unit price. Replacement cost is equal to the cost incurred to regain assets. If the ratio is in a downward trend over the years, it becomes poorer in terms of intellectual capital and intangible assets. This also means that the management of these items is not well done (Akt: Çelik & Perçin, 2000, s. 116). Due to the nature of the research, there is no need for an ethics committee permission document.


2.1. RESEARCH TYPE
The article is a case study.
2.2. RESEARCH PROBLEMS
Two questions were answered in the research: (1) What are the components of intellectual capital? (2) What are the methods of capitalization of intellectual capital?
2.3. DATA COLLECTION METHOD
Balance sheet data of two public banks were used in the study. Used data are reliable due to the Capital Market Board-CMB audits them. Analysis method developed by James Tobin (1969) was used in the analysis of the balance sheet data.
3. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
According to the evaluations made, it was found that the intellectual capital of both banks subject to analysis was in an increasing trend between 2016-2018 and the customer capital followed a fluctuating course. It is observed that there was an increase in the number of branches and employees of both banks in the analyzed three-year period. In addition to the increase in the number of branches and employees in the number of branches and employees, the human and structural capital of banks also increased in the same period. In 2018, the ratio of human capital in operating expenses was around 25% in both banks. According to this result, it can be said that both banks have a high level of intellectual capital accumulation. Within the framework of these findings, it can be said that a potential basis for capitalization can be formed by eliminating the deficiencies in the literature.
4. CONCLUSION, RECOMMENDATION AND LIMITATIONS
In an environment where capital flows are so liberalized in the globalizing world, intellectual capital movements inevitably have an intense fluidity too. As our country increases its share of foreign investment and R&D, it can continue to increase its intellectual capital accumulation, and this accumulation can lead to the acceleration of the integration of financial statements, and the concept of capitalizing human resources accounting and intellectual capital to settle in the business world. The public administration can speed up and facilitate this process by preparing the legal infrastructure for the capitalization of intellectual capital. There is always a difference between the balance sheet value and market value of the company. The calculation of the intellectual capital owned by the business will allow this difference to be explained a little more. There is not yet a generally accepted standard for the capitalization of intellectual capital in the world or our country. We hope that our research will set a small example for those who want to work in this field. In order to establish a standard in the capitalization of intellectual capital, other researchers need to come up with more examples based on real firm data. Balance sheet data of public companies are easily accessible. These data are reliable for evaluation, as they have audited many audits. We can state that this is an opportunity for new research.

PDF (Türkçe)

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. Algan, N., Demiral, M., & Bal, H. (2014). Gelişmekte olan Ülkeler Küresel Sermayeyi Çekme Konusunda Niçin Başarısız Olmaktadırlar?Balkan Ülkeleri için Lucas Paradoksunun Yeniden İncelenmesi. Adana: International Conference on Euroasian Economies.
  2. Arıkboğa, Ş. (2003). Entelektüel Sermaye (30 b.). İstanbul: Derin Yayınları.
  3. Atik, H. (2006). Beşeri Sermaye,Dış Ticaret ve Ekonomik Büyüme (1.Baskı b.). Bursa: Ekin Kitabevi.
  4. Bal, H., Akça, E., & Tekin, İ. (2017). Lucas Paradoksunun Yeniden Incelenmesi. LAMBERT cad.Publishing.
  5. Bartolo, A. M.(1999).Human Capital Estimation Through Structural Equation Models with Some Categorical Variables.International WorkshoponCorrelated Data Estimating Function,Trieste(maliyetdergisi.sgb.gov.tr), 12.
  6. Becker, G. S. (1994). Human Capital:A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis with Special Reference to Education. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  7. Boda, G., & Szlavik, P. (2007). Alternative Accounting to Manage Intellectual Capital. The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(1), 1-18.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228554261_Alternative_
  8. Brooking, A. (1997). The Management of Intellectual Capital (30-3 b.). Cambridge-UK: Long Range Planning.
  9. Celemi. (1995). Annual Report-Celemi Annual Report-95. Celemi International.
  10. Ceran, Y. (2003). İnsan Kaynakları Muhasebesi. 3 23, 2020 tarihinde http://dergisosyalbil.selcuk.edu.tr/susbed /article/view/446 adresinden alındı
  11. Çelik, A. E., & Perçin, S. (2000). Enteletüel Sermaye'nin İşletme Bazında Ölçülmesi ve Değerlendiirlmesi. Muhasbe ve Deenetime Bakış, 1(2), 111-118.
  12. Çıkrıkçı, M., & Daştan, A. (2002). Entelektüel Sermayenin Temel Finansal Tablolar Aracılığıyla Sunulması. Bankacılar Dergisi, 43, 19-29.
  13. David Skyrme Associates. (2002).Measuring Intellectual Capital:A Plethora of Methods. Insight Overview,24, 4.
  14. Edvinsson,L.(2020).quaro.6-20-19 da alındı.https://www.quora.com/Is-Human-Resources-capitalized-Why
  15. Edvinsson, L., & Malone, M. (1997). Intellectual Capital. Harper Business,New York.
  16. Erden, S. A. (2003). Yatırım Merkezi Başarı Değerlemesinde Kullanılan Ekonomik Katma Değer Ölçüsü ile Dengeli Değerleme Kartı Uygulaması. Muhasebe Finansman Dergisi, 20, 87.
  17. Erdoğan, A. (2018). Gelişmekte Olan Ülkelerde Doğrudan Yabancı Sermaye Yatırımları ve Türkiye Örneği (3 b.). İstanbul: Nobel .
  18. GİB-5746, A. (2016, Eylül 30).Gelir İdaresi Başkanlığı. 02-06-2020 tarihinde https://www.gib.gov.tr/ 5746 -sayili -arastirma-gelistirme-ve-tasarim-faaliyetlerinin-desteklenmesi-hakkinda-kanun-genel-2 adresinden alındı
  19. Grilliches, Z. (1981). Market Value, R&D and Patents. Economics Letters, 7, 183-187.
  20. Guthrie, J., Petty, R., & Johansson, U. (2001). Sunrise in the Knowledge Economy. Accounting,Auditing and Accountability Journal, 14(4), 367.
  21. Gülmez, A., & Akpolat, A. G. (2014). Ar-Ge & İnovasyon Ve Ekonomik Büyüme: Türkiye ve AB Örneği İçin Dinamik Panel Veri Analizi. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 2, 4.
  22. Gürol, Y. D. (2005). "Toplam Dengeli Başarı Göstergesi Yönteminin Stratejik Bilginin Sağlanmasındaki Yeri" III.Ulusal Bilgi, Ekonomi ve Yönetim Kongresi. Eskişehir.
  23. Huang, T. (1997). Capitalizing Collective Knowledge for Winning, Execution. Journal of Knowledge Management, 1(2), 149-156.
  24. huffpost.com. (2014). Capitalizing on Human Capital. USA: Huffpost.
  25. huffpost.com. (2020). Huffpost.com. 3 23, 2014 tarihinde https://www.huffpost.com/entry/capitalizing-on-human-capital_b_4640273, THE BLOG adresinden alındı
  26. Husz, M. (1998). "Human Capital, Endogenous Growth, and Government Policy";thejournalofbusiness.org (Frankfurt am Main b.). Newyork: Peter Lang.
  27. Ilgaz, D. (2015). Know-How ve Ticari Sırlar (Teknoloji Transferi ve Fikri Haklarla İlgili Lisans Anlaş maları. Marmara Üniversitesi Avrupa Topluluğu Enstitüsü Avrupa Araştırmaları Dergisi, 8(1-2), 155-182.
  28. İşevi, S., & Çelme, B. (2008). Bilgi Çağında Yeni Hazine: Entelektüel Sermayeyle Rekabeti Yakalamak (1.Ünak b.). Samsun: 19 Mayıs Üniversitesi.
  29. Johnson, A. (2006). The Effects of FDI Inflows on Host Country Economic Growth (58 b.). Jönköping: Cesis Electronic Working Paper Series.
  30. Karagül, M. (2002). Beşeri Sermayenin İktisadi Gelişmedeki Rolü ve Türkiye Boyutu. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Yayınları-Afyon, 37.
  31. Kastrati, S. (2013). The Effects of Foreign Direct Investment for Host Country's. European Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies , 5(1).
  32. Keskin, A. (2011). Ekonomik Kalkınmada Beşeri Sermaye’nin Rolü Ve Türkiye. Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 25(3-4).
  33. Kibritçioğlu, A. (1998). İktisadi Büyümenin Belirleyicileri ve Yeni Büyüme Modellerinde Beşeri Sermayenin Yeri (No.1-4 b.). Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi,Cilt.53.
  34. Kızıl, C. (2009, 12 31). academicrepository.khas.edu.tr. 3 30, 2020 tarihinde http://academicrepository.khas.edu. tr/xmlui/bitstream/handle/20.500.12469/1859/0050178CevdetKizil.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y adres alındı.
  35. Kızıl, C. (2009). Bankacılık Sektöründe Entelektüel Sermayenin Ölçülmesi. İstanbul: Doktora Tezi.
  36. Kosgeb. (2017, 12 12). katalog.marmara.edu.tr. 3 23, 2020 tarihinde http://katalog.marmara.edu.tr/veriler /yordambt/cokluortam/82D0229B-8BDA-DA49-B558-238DC40CEC2A/5563CEE3-4F63-B747-AB27-
  37. Lev, B. (2001). Intangibles: Management , Measurement & Reporting. Washington, US: Brooking Institution. https://books.google.com.tr/books adresinden alındı.
  38. Lipsey, R., & Sjöholm, F. (2005). The impact of inward FDI on host countries :Why such different answers. Institute for International Economics Center for Global Development, 23-43.
  39. Lucas, R. (1998). On The Mechanics of Economic Development. Journal of Monetary Economics, 22, 3-42.
  40. Lucas, R. E. (1990). Why Doesn't Capital Flow from Rich to Poor Countries (80-2 b.). USA: The American Economic Review.
  41. Luthy, D. (1998). Intellectual capital and its measurement. Osaka: Paper presented at the Asian Pacific Interdisciplinary Research in Accounting (APIRA) Conference.
  42. Martini, R. (2016). Effect of intellectual capital to return on equity (2 b.). Palembang, Indonesia: International Journal of Business, Accounting and Management.
  43. OECD. (2007). Human Capital: How What You Know Shapes Your Life. oecd.org.
  44. OECD. (2007). oecd.org.03-06-2020 tarihinde https://www.oecd.org/insights/38435942.pdf adresinden alındı
  45. Özsoy, C. (2007). Türkiye'de Mesleki ve Teknik Eğitimin İktisadi Kalkınmadaki Yeri ve Önemi. Eskişehir: Anadolu Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
  46. Öztürk, E., & Demirgüneş, K. (2003). Değere Dayalı Yönetim ve Entelektüel Sermaye. Ankara: Gazi Kitabevi.
  47. Rodov, I., & Leliaert, P. (2002). FIMIAM: Financial Method of Intangible Assets Measurement. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 3(2), 333.
  48. Roslender, R., & Fincham, R. (2004). Intellectual capital accounting in the UK: a field study perspective. Accounting,Auditing and Accuntability Journal, 17(2), 178-209.
  49. Sari, R., & Soytaş, U. (2006). Income and Education in Turkey: A multivariate analysis. (C. Özsoy, Dü.) Education Economics, 14(2), 181-196.
  50. Saxton, J. (2000). Invesment In Education:Private and Public Returns. Joint Economic Committee United States Congress, 1-35.
  51. Saygılı, Ş., & Cihan, C. (2006). Türkiye Ekonomisinde Beşeri Sermaye-Verimlilik Artışı İlişkisi, İktisat İşletme ve Finans İnceleme. İstanbul: Araştırma 21.Yıl.
  52. Schultz, T. W. (1961). Investment in Human Capital (51-1 b.). USA: The American Economic Review.
  53. Selimoğlu, S. K. (2001). İşletmelerin Etkinliğini ve Verimliliği Artırmada İnsan Kaynağı Muhasebesinin Rolü (1290 b.). Eskişehir: T.C.Anadolu Üniversitesi Yayınları.
  54. Smith, A. (2016). Milletlerin Zenginliği.Çev:Hasan Ali Yücel Klasikler Dizisi. İstanbul-Türkiye: İşbankası Kültür Yayınları.
  55. Stewart, T. (1991, June).Brainpower: How Intellectual Capital is Becoming America's Most Valuable. Fortune.
  56. Stewart, T. (1997). Intellectual Capital. New York: Doubleday.
  57. Stroombergen, A., Rose, D., & Nana, G. (2002). Review of the Statistical Measurement of Human Capital. Statistics New Zeland, 24.
  58. Sullivan, P. (1998). Profiting from Intellectual Capital: Extracting Value from Innovation. Wiley.
  59. Svanadze, S., & Kowalewska, M. (2017). The measurement of intellectual capital by market capitalization method: Empirical study of Polish listed companies (5-2 b.). A Publication of the International Institute for Applied Knowledge Management.
  60. Tamura, R. (1991). Income Convergence in an Endogenous Growth Model. Journal of Political Economics, 99(3), 522-540.
  61. TMS19-TMS2, K. G. (2006, Mart 30). Çalışanlara Sağlanan Faydalar-TMS19. Haziran 02, 2020 tarihinde https://kgk.gov.tr
  62. Yardımcı, P. (2006). İçsel Büyüme Modelleri. Selçuk Üniversitesi Karaman İ.İ.B.F. Dergisi, 10(9), 99.
  63. Yaşar Kabataş. (2011, 12 12). Marmara Üniversitesi İİB Dergisi. 3 23, 2020 tarihinde http://dosya.marmara.edu.tr/ikf/iib-dergi/2011-1/283-299kabatas.pdf_2011 adresinden alındı
  64. Yereli, A., & Gerşil, G. (2005). Entelektüel Sermayeyi Ölçme ve Raporlama Yöntemleri. Celal Bayar Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Yönetim ve Ekonomi Dergisi, 12(2), 17-29.
  65. Yücel, A., Ulucak, R., & Erdem, E. (2015). Kayseri'nin Beşerî Sermaye Potansiyeli ve Beşeri Sermaye Harcamalarının Rakip İllerle Etkileşimi. Akademik Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 3(18), 286-302.