Abstract
The aim of this study is to understand ILs for a practice-based perspective. This research will try to answer the following research questions: How do companies conceive ILs? How do they measure ILs? and how do they manage ILs? Alvesson and Deetz’s (2000) critical management research framework was selected for the examination. The study is based on a field study that has involved large Italian companies. 
 
 The main findings are the following. First, there is a relevant gap between theory and practice as most of the ideas about ILs seem to have not entered into organizations. Second, the use of expressions like “intangible risk” appear to be more effective and understandable than “intellectual liabilities. as the word “intangibles” is more understandable than “intellectual capital”. Third, companies tend to focus on human capital risks, customer risks, and IP risks as they are perceived as the most relevant ones. Fourth, ILs’ measurements seem to be stand alone, ambiguous, simple and designed (or co-designed) by their direct users. Fifth, the management of ILs appear to be rather informal and fragmented.
Highlights
Within the IC discourse, the idea that Intellectual Capital (IC) has an important role in creating competitive advantages and a relevant influence on the organisational performance is dominant (Edvinsson and Malone, 1997; Stewart, 1997; Sveiby, 1997)
It is not possible to identify a unique definition of Intellectual Liabilities (ILs) even if they tend to be related with the ideas of wealth destruction and intangible risks or obligations (De Santis and Giuliani, 2013)
This implies, among other things, that while the “asset side” of IC is in its “third stage” (Guthrie, et al, 2012), the research on ILs is still highly fragmented and the identification, measurement, and management of ILs are still considered to be problematic (De Santis and Giuliani, 2013). Due to this lack of studies, little is known about ILs in practice, i.e. how ILs are conceived, reported and managed by organisations. This is relevant, as the issues related to ILs have gained momentum thanks to the fact several initiatives (e.g. Wici, Integrated Reporting (IR), EU directive on non-financial reporting, etc.) have pushed forward the idea of reporting the risks related to intangibles
Summary
Within the IC discourse, the idea that Intellectual Capital (IC) has an important role in creating competitive advantages and a relevant influence on the organisational performance is dominant (Edvinsson and Malone, 1997; Stewart, 1997; Sveiby, 1997). In spite of the potential relevance of ILs within the IC discourse (Canibano and Garcia Ayuso, 2000; Garcia-Parra, et al, 2009; Stam, 2009), they are still “one of the most under-researched or, more realistically, avoided topics in the IC literature” (Dumay, 2013) This implies, among other things, that while the “asset side” of IC is in its “third stage” (Guthrie, et al, 2012), the research on ILs is still highly fragmented and the identification, measurement, and management of ILs are still considered to be problematic (De Santis and Giuliani, 2013). This is relevant, as the issues related to ILs have gained momentum thanks to the fact several initiatives (e.g. Wici, IR, EU directive on non-financial reporting, etc.) have pushed forward the idea of reporting the risks related to intangibles
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
