The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1469-1930.htm

JIC
13,2 The influence of intellectual
capital on export performance
Stevo Pucar
248 Faculty of Economics, University of Banja Luka, Banja Luka,
Bosnia and Herzegovina

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose is to analyze the impact of intellectual capital (IC) on export performance of
firms and industries.
Design/methodology/approach – This research used value added intellectual coefficient (VAIC) to
measure intellectual capital as an independent variable. An export performance, as dependent
variable, was measured as growth of exports. The sample consisted of 134 firms in Bosnia and
Herzegovina (B&H). Empirical analysis was done by linear regression analysis.
Findings – The results of regression analysis show a significant ( p , 0.01), positive influence of the
value added intellectual coefficient and its components on the export growth in the sector of food and
beverages and manufacturing of furniture and wood products in B&H. For other sectors there is no
significant relation of independent and dependent variable.
Practical implications – The results correspond with the results of the EU project that determined
competitive advantages of B&H by Michael Porter’s methodology. Results of this research raise the
possibility of further testing of the author’s methodology, called the measurement of intellectual
capital in export performance (MICEP) methodology, in determining the competitive advantages,
because it took considerably less time and money than EU project methodology. Also, a strong
influence of IC on the export performance of sectors with competitive advantages opens the way for
industrial policies based on intellectual capital, not only in B&H, but in other countries.
Originality/value – This is the first research that has measured the impact of intellectual capital on
export performance by using the VAIC methodology.
Keywords Intellectual capital, Exports, Competitiveness, Human capital, Competitive advantage,
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Paper type Research paper

Journal of Intellectual Capital
Vol. 13 No. 2, 2012
pp. 248-261
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1469-1930
DOI 10.1108/14691931211225715
1. Introduction
For over two centuries economists have been trying to find ways to better manage scarce
resources. The traditional economic model is based on the assumption of scarcity, in
which supply and demand determine market price. However, knowledge as a resource is
not based on the principle of scarcity. The higher supply of knowledge, the greater is its
value. As an illustration, at the beginning of the twentieth century, the total amount of
information in the world doubled every 30 years. In the 1970s, that number was reduced
to seven years. Today, this time is reduced to less than 18 months.
What is even more important is that the market has recognized the value of
knowledge and other intangible factors long ago. That is why companies often worth
more than its book value. Handy (1989) cited the results of his research which found
that the value of intellectual capital is usually three or four times greater than the book
value of the company. Also, according to a research conducted by Baruch Lev (2001),
intangible assets i.e. intellectual capital now represents between 60 and 75 percent of
the real value of the firm.
 This means that effective and efficient management of intellectual capital is becoming The influence of
the only way to create a competitive advantage. The empirical evidence suggests that IC on export
this approach can be a basis for accelerated economic growth and development. This
approach implies that competitiveness of individual companies and entire economies is performance
not conditioned by the material resources at their disposal – natural resources, physical
and financial capital. Instead, it is conditioned by the quality of human and intellectual
capital – quality and quantity of knowledge, innovation, creativity, etc. 249
One of other key factors necessary to accelerate the economic development of a
country is growth of exports, particularly in knowledge and technology intensive
industries. Analyzing the many theoretical and empirical findings in this area, which
represent the basis for this research, some general global trends should be noted:
.
Increasing importance of exports and investment. The value of world exports
since 1980 has increased several times, and the highest rates of GDP growth have
those countries that have the largest increase in exports.
. Growth in the global mobility of factors of production, which represents a
potential increase in the similarity of production capacity around the world.
Moreover, rapid transport and communication increasingly diminish the role of
location as a factor of competitiveness.
.
Technology is becoming a key factor in the development, and mass production
based on cheap labor, raw materials and energy is losing its significance.
.
Industries based on knowledge are becoming increasingly important as a result
of technological development. Knowledge and skills, and human resources are
becoming key elements of competitiveness.

Most findings suggest that the twenty-first century will be a period of global competition
in which national borders will play a minimum role in terms of availability of products
and services. Economic and technological globalization that we have already witnessed
has forced countries to stimulate the creation of internationally competitive products and
enterprises, and to create an investment climate that will attract internationally
competitive businesses and industries. This is now becoming a key factor of economic
growth and development of countries, regions, cities. However, what is particularly
important is that the focus of export competitiveness in the global economy shifts from
low-cost labor and natural resources to the technological content, quality, design, etc.
The most important flows of international trade are dominated by products and services
with higher share knowledge i.e. intellectual capital in their creation.
The purpose of this research was to analyze the impact of intellectual capital on
export performance i.e. international competitiveness and to evaluate possibilities of
creation of intellectual capital based industrial policies. The structure of this paper is as
follows. After the introduction, the second part of the paper elaborates theoretical basis
for this research. This is followed by the research objective and hypotheses in the third
and the methodology and data in the fourth part. Results and discussion of results are
shown in the fifth section and there are some concluding remarks at the end.

2. Theoretical basis
The relation between human factor and export performance has received widespread
attention in the economic literature. Many studies have explored this relationship,
JIC among others Gomez-Mejia (1988), Cavusgil and Zou (1994), Levin and Raut (1997), Zou
13,2 and Stan (1998), Grasjo (2005), Contractor and Mudambi (2008), Andersson and
Johanson (2009), etc. These studies use aggregate data for human capital such as
average years of schooling, the number of highly educated population, investment in
human capital, etc. One of the most important researches in this field, the research by
Levin and Raut that takes into account the data from 45 developing countries, found
250 that there are significant complementarities between export performance and human
capital. Similar results were obtained in research conducted by Contractor and
Mudambi (2008) on the sample of 25 countries. Also, research carried out by Grasjo
(2005) and Andersson and Johanson (2009), instead the country level, use data on
human capital and export performance at the regional level and suggest that the higher
the human capital of a region, the higher the level of exports and the average price of
exported goods (as an indicator for the structure of exports) is also higher.
However, the relation between intellectual capital and export performance is still
insufficiently explored. According to Bontis (1998), the term “intellectual capital (IC),”
was first introduced by John Kenneth Galbraith, but the theory of intellectual capital
(IC) began to be more present in international public during the 1990s of the last
century. The difference between human capital and intellectual capital is in the fact
that intellectual capital is not just knowledge and skills that can be acquired by
learning and training. It represents an active transformation of knowledge into a new
value, value-added products or services. The study of intellectual capital means
researching intangible assets. Therefore the key problem in this area is its
measurement. Unfortunately, the fact that it is intangible, regardless of the simplicity
of the concept, becomes a problem for researchers when it is necessary to measure it,
because it is difficult and expensive. This is probably the other reason why the relation
between intellectual capital and export performance is still insufficiently explored.
The only two studies on relation between intellectual capital and export performance
that were found during the review of literature for this research were Moslehi et al. (2006)
and Zerenler and Gozlu (2008). In this regard, one of the most similar research studies to
this research is the research by Zerenler and Gozlu (2008). Their research used a
relatively complicated and expensive survey method for measuring intellectual capital.
Intellectual capital of the cluster supplying auto-industry of Turkey (companies in the
field of metal industry, electrical industries, production of plastic, etc.) was measured by
Direct Intellectual Capital method, based on questionnaires, and Zerenler and Gozlu
examined its impact on export performance. The findings of their study clearly confirm
that the export performance of enterprises is under powerful influence of intellectual
capital, especially in high-tech sectors.
Fortunately, there are some methodologies that measure IC in an equally effective, but
more simple and less expensive way. One that is often used is the Value Added
Intellectual Coefficient methodology. The Value Added Intellectual Coefficient (“VAIC”)
developed by Ante Pulić, is a method for measuring the performance of a company
(Pulić, 2000a). In particular, VAIC measures the total value creation efficiency in the
company. The better utilization of company’s resources brings higher value creation
efficiency of the company. Pulić (2000a) was the first one to test his methodology, on the
sample of 250 Financial Times Stock Exchange companies and Vienna Stock companies.
According to his results, there is a close relationship between the value creation
efficiency of the resources, i.e. VAIC, and the market value of companies.
 Although there is no research of relation between intellectual capital, measured by The influence of
VAIC, and export performance, there are many studies that explore the impact of VAIC IC on export
on different kinds of performance of companies. Some of them will be mentioned here.
Chen et al. (2005) found that intellectual capital measured by VAIC, shows significant performance
positive influence on market returns, and also on current and future financial
performance of Taiwanese firms. Tan et al. (2007) confirmed these results on the
sample of companies located in Singapore. Mavridis and Kyrmizoglou (2005) used 251
VAIC method to measure the performance of Greek listed firms under its intellectual
(IC) and physical (CA) aspect. It confirms the existence of some added value-based
performance differences and states “that ‘localized firms’ are the distinct small
technocratic, blue-collar intellectual performers while the ‘globalized’ ones are the large
plutocratic, white-collar intellectual performers”.
The research of 80 Taiwan technological companies (Shiu, 2006) showed that VAIC
had a positive impact on profitability (ROA) and market value, and negative impact on
productivity. Kujansivu (2006) found that the least efficient were companies in forest
and chemical industries and companies in the electricity, gas and water supply sector
were most efficient in utilizing their IC.
Kamath (2008) calculated VAIC using the sample of 25 firms in the pharmaceutical
industry of India, for the period from 1996 to 2006. He finds that VAIC results show
that Indian pharmaceutical companies do well and efficiently utilize their IC. Basso
et al. (2009) from Mackenzie Presbyterian University showed that, based on similar
models, this influence was strong in technologically more advanced sectors in Brazil
(manufacture of machinery and equipment manufacturing of cars, furniture
production), while for the less technologically developed sectors this effect is
negligible or nonexistent (textiles, clothing, leather and leather goods, etc.) Phusavat
et al. (2011) researched the influence of value added intellectual coefficient (VAIC) on a
performance of manufacturing firms. It finds that IC has a significant influence on
return on equity, return on assets, revenue growth, and employee productivity.

3. Research objective and hypotheses

The objective of this research is, on the one hand, scientific – to empirically analyze the
influence of intellectual capital on export performance and explain the causal
dependencies in the light of relevant previous research, and, on the other hand,
pragmatic – to establish the benefits for policy making that may result from the
research results.
In this research only intellectual capital indicator (VAIC) and human capital
indicator (HCE) are chosen to be independent variables. A structural capital indicator
(SCE) and an indicator of capital employed (CEE) were not chosen although they were
calculated as components of VAIC. The reason for this choice is the fact that most of
studies in this area (Gomez-Mejia, 1988, Cavusgil and Zou, 1994, Levin and Raut, 1997,
etc.) used human capital indicators such as average years of schooling, the number of
highly educated population, investment in human capital, etc. The choice of only
human capital indicator (HCE) among other VAIC components was an attempt to make
this research more compatible with previously mentioned studies.
First two hypotheses are based on the relation between level of coefficients of
intellectual and human capital and export growth is explored. In essence here the
intention is to see how past development of intellectual and human capital that has
JIC resulted in achieved level of coefficients, influence the growth of exports. It must be
13,2 emphasized here that growth of exports is chosen because level of exports was
favoring larger firms:
H1a. There is positive relation between the level of Value Added Intellectual
Coefficient (VAIC) and export growth of firms and sectors.
252 H1b. There is positive relation between the level of Human Capital Efficiency (HCE)
coefficient and export growth of firms and sectors.
Other two hypotheses are based on the relation between growth of coefficients of
intellectual and human capital and export growth. In essence here the intention is to see
the influence of current growth of intellectual and human capital on the growth of
exports:
H2a. There is positive relation between growth of Value Added Intellectual
Coefficient (VAIC) and export growth of firms and sectors.
H2b. There is positive relation between growth of Human Capital Efficiency (HCE)
coefficient and export growth of firms and sectors.

4. Methodology and data

4.1 Methodology
As mentioned earlier, VAIC i.e. the coefficient of use of intellectual capital in creating
value added is one of the most often used methods of intellectual capital measurement.
Unlike most other methods, VAIC methodology is developed not only for enterprise
level, but also for sector, regional, country and other different levels. For these reasons,
this coefficient is chosen as the independent variable.
Phases of the VAIC calculation are described in the next section of this chapter
(Pulić, 2001). Components of the model are:
.
Output ¼ Total income.
.
Input ¼ Total expenses (excluding staff costs and depreciation).
. Value Added ¼ Output-Input.
.
HC ¼ staff costs, treated as investments.
.
CE ¼ capital employed (both physical and financial capital).
.
SC ¼ VA – HC (proxy for structural capital).
.
HCE ¼ VA 4 HC (indicator of the efficiency of human capital).
.
CEE ¼ VA 4 CE (indicator of the efficiency of capital employed).
.
SCE ¼ SC 4 VA (structural indicator of the efficiency of capital)
.
VAIC ¼ HCE þ SCE þ CEE (coefficient of use of intellectual capital in creating
additional value).

Regarding the dependent variable, in the economic literature much attention has been
devoted to the measurement of export performance of companies and economies
(Sousa, 2004). There is a significant number of studies that are devoted to it. What is,
however, evident is that the research on the measurement of exports is still
underdeveloped (Sousa, 2004), as there is no consensus on the conceptual and
operational definitions. Although in comparison to previous research (Zou and Stan, The influence of
1998) the development of theory and methodology of measuring export performance IC on export
achieved some progress, it is still not possible to clearly delineate the domain of this
construct and identify all its dimensions (Sousa, 2004). performance
This is why the simplest possible variable that measures the performance of export
companies was chosen at the beginning of the research – the growth of total export
value per employee for each firm that was calculated as follows: 253
.
Exports per worker (t) ¼ Total exports (t)/Number of employees (t),
.
Growth of exports per worker (t þ 1) ¼ (Exports per worker (t þ 1) – Exports
per worker (t))/Exports per worker (t),

4.2 Data
In this research, data were used from the Agency of Intermediary, IT and financial
services (APIF), Banja Luka, Bosnia and Herzegovina (B&H), the institution authorized
to collect and process data from financial statements of companies. The firms were
selected according to their export volume, and 200 largest exporters in APIF database
were selected for the period from 2004 to 2007. It should be emphasized that from a
total of 200 companies selected for the research, 37 were eliminated immediately
because there was a lack of some basic facts about them (name of the firm, sector,
income, etc.), so the sample was reduced to 163 companies. Furthermore, 29 companies
were eliminated from the sample because they had not been operating during all four
years (2004-2007), so the final sample numbered 134 companies.

5. Results and discussion

5.1 Descriptive statistics
Based on the methodology for calculating the dependent and independent variables
(the coefficient of intellectual capital in creating value VAIC, its components, and
exports per worker), all indicators required for this research were calculated.
Descriptive statistics for the average values, for all companies in the period 2004-2007,
as shown in Table I.
The companies that have highest values in almost all types of variables are trading
enterprises. An explanation for this situation has to be given. Trade companies achieve
high values of these coefficients, mainly due to the high added value created by the
difference between the buying and selling prices of goods that are traded. Some of them
have only one employee and a large amount of value added.

Growth of VAIC/
Human capital efficiency Growth growth of export
coefficient (HCE) of HCE VAIC per worker

Mean 1.61 20.04 2.05 20.05 0.24 Table I.

Standard deviation 3.49 2.19 4.16 8.08 12.86 Descriptive statistics for
Median 1.97 0.04 2.89 0.06 0.33 the average values for all
Maximum 28.22 16.91 29.50 3.79 98.33 companies in the period
Minimum 27.04 21.89 2 13.26 292.42 20.33 2004-2007
JIC Poor results of export firms in B&H are evident concerning the growth of VAIC and
13,2 HCE with an average drop of 5 and 4 percent, respectively. In simple words, the most
important part of one economy – export-oriented sector, declines in terms of human
and intellectual capital in B&H. Although export grows strongly, the change of its
structure is quite unfavorable, with an increase of share of raw materials and
intermediate goods and, a decrease of share of finished high value added products.
254 This is no surprise since there is a significant and growing dependency of the local
economy on natural resources – such as iron ore, aluminum, copper, wood and others.
Two major groups of products that are exported from B&H are base metals and their
products and raw wood and wood products. The data on exports show that B&H has
an extremely narrow export structure. Export structure is dominated by products that
have very little built-in added value (iron ore and metal, raw or slightly processed
wood, energy, etc.).

5.2 Regression analysis

Summary results for all sectors can be seen in Table II. It must be emphasized that
sectors with less than ten firms within the sample were not taken into consideration.
The results of regression analysis give us a few important conclusions. First, at the
level of the entire sample, i.e. all sectors together, all four hypotheses H1a, H1b, H2a
and H2b are not confirmed because there is no statistically significant relationship of
dependent and independent variables. This is in line with general poor conditions of
the B&H economy of that can be seen in descriptive statistics, with declining
intellectual and human capital. This is also in accordance with the research of Bukvič
(2011) who finds that B&H, together with other countries of Southeast Europe, is in the
process of deindustrialization.
However, the results of regression analysis show that sectors with significant,
positive causal connection between the human and intellectual capital and export
growth in B&H are sectors of food and beverages production and furniture and other
wood products. In the case of food and beverages production the hypotheses H1a and
H1b are confirmed, and in the case of sector of furniture and other wood products the
hypothesis H2a is confirmed. Concerning these sectors, it is important to emphasize
that they are dominated by the production of products with relatively high value
added. In order to make things more clear, it should be mentioned that food and drinks

Level of Growth of Growth of

n VAIC Level of HCE VAIC HCE

All companies 134 2 0.770 20.304 21.007 2 0.308

Food and beverage production 14 0.378 * 0.433 * 20.337 0.120
Textiles, leather and clothing 18 0.102 0.111 0.435 2 0.244
Primary processing of wood 20 2 0.007 20.002 15260.000 21321.000
Manufacturing of furniture and 12 2 0.612 2 12,218.000 41,499.000 * 2 131,331.000
other wood products
Metal products, machinery, 28 226,413.000 20.907 210,398.000 2 0.406
vehicles and equipment
Table II. Trade and services 21 2 0.498 20.582 19,888.000 2 81,925.000
Results of regression
analysis Note: *Statistical significance at the level of 99 percent (p , 0:01)
production is consisted of processed and canned fruits and vegetables, fruit juices, The influence of
cookies and biscuits, milk and dairy products, meat and meat products, alcoholic IC on export
beverages, etc. Production of furniture and other wood products mainly includes home
and office furniture, and, to a lesser extent, joinery. performance
In other sectors, primary wood processing, textiles, leather and clothing, metal
industry and trade and service industries, which were represented in the sample, there
is no statistically significant correlation between export performance and human and 255
intellectual capital in this research. Trade enterprises in our sample mostly export the
ore. Primary wood processing enterprises export logs and sawn timber. Textile, leather
and apparel enterprises in B&H are mostly engaged in so-called “lohn-business“ – low
paid renting of their labor force to foreign enterprises, since they import parts,
assemble them, and export assembled semi-finished products to the same foreign
enterprise. Service sector also belongs to this group and is represented in the sample
mostly by transport enterprises. The only exception in terms of impact of intellectual
capital on export performance in our research is metal industry. This is the only sector
in the “worse” group of sectors that produce semi-finished and finished products with a
relatively higher value added.
Many studies have the focus that is similar to this research. The first group are
research studies that examine the influence of human factor measured on the basis of
aggregate data on labor force and population, on the export performance such as
Gomez-Mejia (1988), Cavusgil and Zou (1994), Levin and Raut (1997), Zou and Stan
(1998), Grasjo (2005), Contractor and Mudambi (2008), Andersson and Johanson (2009),
etc. Findings of our research that define sectors in the economy of B&H with
significant influence of IC and HC on export performance, fit in the findings of those
studies that found positive relation between export performance and human capital.
The difference between these studies and this research is that they use aggregate data,
which usually cannot be classified per sectors and industries, but only at the level of a
country or region (average years of schooling, the number of highly educated
population, investment in human capital, etc.) and draw conclusions only at the
aggregate level. Thus, these studies cannot define specific skills that are important to
improve export performance in a given area. This research provides information on the
influence of human and intellectual capital at the firm and sector levels.
As mentioned earlier, one of the most similar research studies to our research is the
research by Zerenler and Gozlu (2008) that confirms powerful influence of intellectual
capital on export performance of enterprises, especially in high-tech sectors. The
difference in comparison to this study is that Zerenler and Gozlu were limited on the
technologically advanced cluster of the Turkish auto industry and our research did not
have any restrictions concerning sectors. This explains the fact that results of our
research indicate the sectors with a strong influence of human and intellectual capital
on the export performance as well as the sectors where human and intellectual capital
had no effect on the export performance.
There is also group of studies that use Value Added Intellectual Coefficient –
VAICe methodology, created by Ante Pulić, which investigated the impact of the use
of intellectual capital in creating added value to various business and economic
performance of enterprises, sectors, regions and countries.
It must be emphasized that, according to a review of all available previous research
in this field (Titova, 2010), our research is the first research in the world which
JIC measures the effect of the Value Added Intellectual Coefficient (VAIC) and its
13,2 components, to the export performance of firms, sectors and countries. The reason why
export performance is not yet used as the dependent variable is probably the fact that
this is still relatively “young” methodology, since its extensive use began only in the
last five to six years. With this in mind, this research opens up a new possibility of
using the VAIC methodology, and this is the area of export competitiveness.
256 The general conclusion of the majority of previous studies that use VAIC
methodology is that intellectual capital measured by VAIC coefficient and its
components has a significant impact on general business and economic performance of
enterprises, sectors and countries, although the results are not identical in different
sectors within the country, and in the same sectors in different countries. Our research
fits into this general finding according to which intellectual capital has a significant
impact on business performance of companies, sectors and countries, especially in
sectors that create more added value.
However, one of the most important research studies that has similar results to this
research, is the one conducted by the EU Delegation in B&H. The Delegation of the
European Union in B&H funded and implemented a research project “Analysis and
mapping value chains in Bosnia and Herzegovina” (Delegation of the European Union
in Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2008). The project objective was to determine the economic
sectors in B&H, which are competitive advantages of the country. EU experts who
carried out the research used methodology created by Michael Porter.
EU research results indicate that B&H has a competitive advantage in the following
sectors: fruit and vegetables, milk and dairy products, products of medical and
aromatic plants, furniture manufacturing, production of joinery and metal industry
(Delegation of the European Union in Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2008). If we compare
these results with results of this research we see that the sectoral focus is very similar.
The first three sectors belong to food and beverage sector, and the production of
furniture and joinery sector is one sector in our research. The only sector that is has a
different treatment is again metal industry. The main difference with the EU research
is that the sample of companies in the metal sector in this research is dominated by
companies that have large losses such as “Industrija alata” Trebinje, “Famos”
Sarajevo, “Jelšingrad” and others. These are former state-owned enterprises, which use
outdated technology and are on the edge of survival. EU research sample was
dominated by very successful companies “Aluminium” Mostar, TMD Gradačac, as
well as the entire automotive industry cluster attached to Volkswagen. Unfortunately,
data for those very competitive metal industry firms were not available for this
research.
Regardless of the logical and clear discrepancy in terms of the metal industry, the
similarity of these results cannot be denied. This research has found that there is a
strong influence of intellectual capital in almost all sectors in B&H defined by Porter’s
methodology as competitive advantages, while there is no such influence in those
sectors that Porter’s methodology eliminated.
First it has to be emphasized that our research, based on our methodology that we
shall from now on call the Measurement of Intellectual Capital in Export Performance
(MICEP) methodology, is much simpler and takes significantly less time and money.
The conclusion that could be made according to findings of this research is that
sectors with significant influence of intellectual and human capital on export
performance in B&H are also sectors that represent competitive advantages of The influence of
economy of B&H (recognized by value chain mapping analysis and by market). This IC on export
means that the improvement of intellectual capital and human capital in these sectors
in B&H, i.e. the adoption of new knowledge and ideas in business activities could have performance
a significant impact on their export growth.
Why is this important for B&H? Because the results of this study indicate that in
some domestic sectors in B&H, there are good conditions for creation of a 257
competitiveness and dynamic knowledge-based economic activities. This means that
the B&H is able to fit into the regional, European and world markets, despite the
current poor overall economic situation and a relatively poor level of education of
people. The human and intellectual capital that exists in sectors of food and beverages
production and furniture and other wood products in the B&H is the result of prior
knowledge and skills, formal education, training, experience, etc. This indicates that
the various institutions that have so far educated personnel in these areas may provide
strong contribution to the competitiveness and export performance of these sectors in
the future.
This could be a possible route of enhancing competitiveness of sectors that are of
strategic importance for the economy of B&H and important ingredient of relevant
policies, especially industrial policy.

The basis for a new industrial policy

The fact that this research found strong influence of intellectual capital in competitive
advantages of B&H provides a basis for rewriting of an industrial policy that is
implemented in the country. The industrial policy in B&H is focused on those
companies and sectors that are considered to be of special importance due to their size,
especially those with high employment. Instruments of industrial policy in B&H
include subsidies, selective credit conditions, a flexible application of laws on market
competition and state ownership.
According to results of this research, the key to increasing the competitive ability of
the economy in B&H is the systematic collection, use, transfer and knowledge creation
mainly in areas with competitive advantages, but not excluding any other sector where
it is possible to create a competitive advantage. The restructuring of enterprises and
increasing the use of human and intellectual capital in selected sectors in B&H is
therefore of huge importance. This requires a public intervention by several programs
of enterprise restructuring in selected strategic sectors and it can be achieved on the
basis of previously tested methodology for developing the intellectual capital of the
company. This methodology encourages the transformation of enterprises into
value-oriented firms.
An example of such a restructuring program is APENIK, VAIC-based program,
which was initiated by the Croatian Chamber of Commerce. The main feature of the
program is to increase business efficiency by continuous training of employees and by
measurement of their effectiveness. The benefit for companies is primarily to create the
preconditions for the improvement of efficiency of at least 5 to 10 percent compared to
the previous situation. The application of this program allows recognizing the
effectiveness of certain parts of the enterprise (organizational units), which is not
noticeable by other monitoring systems. This can locate parts that generate a lower
efficiency than the average and intervene in them. By increased focus on knowledge
JIC and intellectual capital (which includes all employees who create value), the company
13,2 strengthens its ability to successfully create value in the future and thereby increase its
value and competitiveness. The crucial improvement in the company is in the fact that
the value creation becomes a continuous process. One of the most important aspects is
that these programs cost much less than programs of financial assistance to companies
and almost always give better results.
258
Conclusions
The most important contribution of this research is primarily its novel approach for
measuring the impact of the coefficient of use of intellectual capital in creating
additional value (VAIC) and its components to the export performance of firms, sectors
and countries. The VAIC methodology was previously used to examine the effect of
intellectual capital in general and in relation to financial performance of companies,
sectors and countries. With this in mind, this research provides a scientific contribution
by opening up a new possibility of using VAIC methodology, and this is the area of
export competitiveness.
There is also a significant resemblance of the results obtained, to the results of the
Delegation of the European Union in B&H, from the project “Analysis and Mapping
the Value Chains in Bosnia and Herzegovina”, where EU experts in their one-year
project had the task to identify the economic sectors in B&H, which are the competitive
advantages. EU experts have used the well-known, and in practice proven
methodology created by Michael Porter. It might be of relevance that this research
in B&H, based on intellectual capital methodology, produced similar results and took
significantly less time and money.

Implications for researchers and practitioners

Results of this research raise the possibility of further testing of our Measurement of
Intellectual Capital in Export Performance (MICEP) methodology, in determining the
competitive advantages of other countries. It is possible that influence of intellectual
capital on export performance really indicates competitive advantage of sectors within
the economy of one country. The case of B&H confirms this assumption. In the case of
other countries this assumption is yet to be confirmed or rejected. Beside the results of
this research, the findings of most of studies that use VAIC, indicate that such a
connection is possible. As it was mentioned earlier, VAIC results of most research
studies are not identical in different sectors within the country, and in the same sectors
in different countries. In other words, it is possible that one sector in one country has a
large impact of intellectual capital and that the same sector has no impact of
intellectual capital in some other country. Because we talk about one sector in different
countries we cannot speak about large differences in technology (high-tech vs. low
tech) or large differences in value added (high value added vs. low value added
production). The one of most reasonable explanations for this difference is that this
sector has the competitive advantage in one country, and there is no competitive
advantage for the sector in the other country.
Also, if future researches confirm strong influence of intellectual capital on the
export performance of sectors with competitive advantages, this opens the way to
formulation of industrial policies based on intellectual capital, not only in B&H, but in
other countries. Such a studies could provide a basis for more rewording industrial
policy development as opposed to the traditional industrial policy. The term traditional The influence of
industrial policy means industrial policy that is focused on those companies and IC on export
sectors that are considered to be of special importance to the domestic economy due to
their size, impact on economic infrastructure, technology or relationships with the performance
national security. Traditional instruments of such an industrial policy include, for
example, subsidies, selective credit conditions, trade protectionism and, sometimes,
state ownership. 259
The restructuring of enterprises and increasing the use of human and intellectual
capital in selected sectors could therefore be of huge importance not only in B&H, but
in other countries, because many countries are facing their structural problems due to
global economic crisis. On the other hand, the current crisis offers an opportunity to
transform sectors and increase competitiveness, because both public and private sector
in many countries are faced with severe problems and are ready to do everything to
solve them. This would require a public intervention by programs of enterprise
restructuring in selected strategic sectors with more focus on how to create value and
less on how to cut costs, which is now largely in focus. Using the experience from
Croatia with APENIK program, these programs cost much less than programs of
financial assistance to companies and almost always give better results.

Research limitations and future research

The most important limitation of this research was in the fact that it has been focused
only on B&H. It was the result of conscious choice, which was conditioned by the lack
of availability of data for other countries. This means that findings and making of
conclusions on the basis of findings were limited only to B&H. Therefore, the most
important direction for future research is further testing of methodology created in this
research (MICEP methodology) on other countries and comparing those results with
the results of the value chain methodology, created by Michael Porter. Some future
research should confirm or disprove the existence of significant similarities in the
results of these two methodologies, as it exists in this research, using the example of
firms in other countries.
Future research can also be done at the level of individual sectors. Unlike this
research, these research studies could focus on particular types of production, or even
specific products within a sector. Their goal would be to determine which types of
production and products have the largest influence of the human and intellectual
capital on the export performance.

References
Andersson, M. and Johanson, S. (2009), “Human capital and the structure of regional export
flows”, Stockholm, CESIS Electronic Working Paper Series, No. 195, Centre of Excellence
for Science and Innovation Studies (CESIS).
Basso, L.C., Kimura, H. and Aguiar, J.F. (2009), “Intellectual capital and value creation at
Brazilian companies: an analysis of manufacturing industry from 2000 to 2006”,
Mackenzie Presbyterian University, São Paulo, available at: http://ssrn.com/
abstract¼1508512
Bontis, N. (1998), “Intellectual capital: an exploratory study that develops measures and models”,
Management Decision, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 63-76.
JIC Bukvǐ, R. (2011), Vašingtonski konsenzus i deindustrijalizacija istǒne i jugoistǒne Evrope. Nova
srpska politǐka misao, available at: www.nspm.rs/ekonomska-politika/vasingtonski-
13,2 konsenzus-i-deindustrijalizacija-istocne-i-jugoistocne-evrope.html?
Cavusgil, S.T. and Zou, S. (1994), “Marketing strategy-performance relationship: investigation of
the empirical link in export market ventures”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, pp. 1-21.
Chen, M.C., Cheng, S.J. and Hwang, Y. (2005), “An empirical investigation of the relationship
260 between intellectual capital and firms’ market value and financial performance”, Journal of
Intellectual Capital, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 159-76.
Contractor, F. and Mudambi, S. (2008), “The influence of human capital investment on the
exports of services and goods: an analysis of the top 25 services outsourcing countries”,
Management International Review (MIR), Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 433-45, 4th Quarter.
Delegation of the European Union in Bosnia and Herzegovina (2008), “Analysis and mapping
value chains in BiH”, Project No. 2007/146271, Sarajevo, available at: www.delbih.ec.
europa.eu/files/docs/reports/Analiza_i_Mapiranje_Lanca_Vrijednosti.pdf
Gomez-Mejia, L.R. (1988), “The role of human resources strategy in export performance: a
longitudinal study”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 9, pp. 493-505.
Grasjo, U. (2005), “Human capital, R&D and regional export performance”, CESIS Electronic
Working Paper Series, No. 501, Centre of Excellence for Science and Innovation Studies
(CESIS), Stockholm.
Handy, C.B. (1989), The Age of Unreason, Arrow Books, London.
Kamath, G.B. (2008), “Intellectual capital and corporate performance in Indian pharmaceutical
industry”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 684-704.
Kujansivu, P. (2006), “Intellectual capital performance in Finnish companies”, available at: http://
butler.cc.tut.fi/, mettanen/Intellectual%20Capital%20Performance%20in%20Finnish%
20Companies%20-%20Kujansivu%20%28updated%2023.1.06%29.pdf
Lev, B. (2001), Intangibles: Management, and Reporting, Brookings Institution Press,
Washington, DC.
Levin, A. and Raut, L.K. (1997), “Complementarities between exports and human capital in
economic growth: evidence from the semi-industrialized countries”, Economic
Development & Cultural Change, Vol. 46 No. 1, p. 155.
Mavridis, D. and Kyrmizoglou, G.P. (2005), “Intellectual capital performance drivers in the Greek
banking sector”, Management Research News, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 43-62.
Moslehi, A., Mohaghar, A., Tamizi, A. and Bayati, S. (2006), “Intellectual capital and export
development, an examination in four service industries07”, Proceedings of the IEEE
International Conference on Management of Innovation and Technology, pp. 407-11.
Phusavat, K., Comepa, N., Sitko-Lutek, A. and Ooi, K.B. (2011), “Interrelationships between
intellectual capital and performance: empirical examination”, Industrial Management &
Data Systems, Vol. 111 No. 6.
Pulić, A. (2000), “An accounting tool for IC management”, available at: www.vaicon.net
Pulić, A. (2001), “Value creation efficiency analysis of Croatian banks 1996-2000”, available at:
www.vaic-on.net
Shiu, H. (2006), “The application of the value added intellectual coefficient to measure corporate
performance: evidence from technological firms”, International Journal of Management,
Vol. 23 No. 2.
Sousa, C.M.P. (2004), “Export performance measurement: an evaluation of the empirical research
in the literature”, Academy of Marketing Science Review, available at: www.allbusiness.
com/management/3504496-1.html
Tan, P.H., Plowman, D. and Hancock, P. (2007), “Intellectual capital and financial returns of The influence of
companies”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 76-95.
Titova, N. (2010), “Summary on intellectual capital value added (VAIC) and calculated intangible
IC on export
value (CIV) all over the world: lessons to be learnt”, Proceedings of the 2nd European performance
Conference on Intellectual Capital, ISCTE Lisbon University Institute, Lisbon.
Zerenler, M. and Gozlu, S. (2008), “Impact of intellectual capital on exportation performance:
research on the Turkish automotive supplier industry”, Journal of Transnational 261
Management, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 318-41.
Zou, S. and Stan, S. (1998), “The determinants of export performance: a review of the empirical
literature between 1987 and 1997”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 15 No. 5,
pp. 333-56.

Further reading
Firer, S. and Williams, S.M. (2003), “Intellectual capital and traditional measures of corporate
performance”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 348-60.
Hrvatska gospodarska komora (2007), “Intelektualni kapital. Uspješnost na nacionalnoj
županijskoj i poduzetničkoj razini 2006”, Hrvatska gospodarska komora, Zagreb.
Kujansivu, P. and Lonnqvist, A. (2005), “The value and efficiency of intellectual capital in
Finnish companies”, Tampere University of Technology, Tampere.
Pulić, A. (2000), “MVA and VAIC analysis of randomly selected companies from FTSE 250”,
available at: www.vaic-on.net/downloads/ftse30.pdf
Pulić, A. (2004), “Intellectual capital – does it create or destroy value?”, available at: www.vaic-
on.net

About the author

Stevo Pucar has a PhD in Economics. He is an Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Economics,
University of Banja Luka, Banja Luka, Bosnia and Herzegovina. Stevo Pucar can be contacted at:
stevo.pucar@blic.net

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

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints