Financial performance, intellectual capital disclosure and firm value: the winning edge

Figures & data

Figure 1. Conceptual framework. Source: Data, researcher (2023).

Table 1. Sample selection and industry cluster.

Sample selection (Section A)	No of firms	Observation
Sample	63	819
Companies with a total lack of data	12	156
Companies suspended listing	3	039
Companies with missing audited reports on website	9	117
Final sample	39	507
Industry (Section B)	Observation	%
Agricultural	52	10.256
Automobiles & accessories	13	2.564
Banking	78	15.385
Commercial and services	65	12.821
Construction & allied	78	15.385
Energy & petroleum	39	7.6923
Insurance	39	7.6923
Investment	26	5.1282
Investment services	13	2.564
Manufacturing & allied	65	12.821
Telecommunication	13	2.564
Real estate investment trust	13	2.564
Exchange traded funds	13	2.564
Total	507	100.00

Note(s): Section A describes the sample selection procedure; section B presents sample distribution by industry.

Table 2. Skewness/Kurtosis tests for normality.

					------ joint ------
Variable	Obs	Pr(skewness)	Pr(kurtosis)	Adj	chi-(2) Prob > chi^2
Firm value	507	0.5359	0.0312		4.677	0.092
ROA	507	0.9115	0.0445		4.190	0.123
ICDs	507	0.8760	0.0428		4.027	0.118
Firm Size	507	0.6350	0.0310		2.919	0.086
IO	507	0.8450	0.0413		3.884	0.114
LEV	507	0.7342	0.0358		3.375	0.099
LIK	507	0.5751	0.0237		2.234	0.065

Note(s): The table presents test of normality of the study: ROA firm performance; ICD – intellectual capital disclosure; LEV-leverage; LIK-liquidity; SIZE-firm size ($\text{ln TA}$); IO – institution ownership.

Source: Research Data, 2023.

Table 3. Breusch-Pagan/Cook–Weisberg test for heteroskedasticity.

Ho: Constant variance
Variables: Fitted values of firm value
chi^2 (1) = 3.21
Prob > chi^2 = 0.0733

Source: Research Data, 2023.

Table 4. Wooldridge test for autocorrelation in panel data.

Source |	SS	df	MS			Number of obs = 507
———− +————————–						F(1, 506)=772.20
Model |	9.45459176	1		9.45459176		Prob >F = 0.0000
Residual |	4.27303988	506	0.0084280865			R-squared = 0.6887
———− +————————–						Adj R-squared = 0.6878
Total|	13.7276316	455	0.030170618			Root MSE = 0.11065
u |	Coef.	Std. Err.	t	ρ >|t|		[95% Conf. Interval]
u |
L1. | .	0007686	0.0059064	0.13	0.897	−0.0108481	0.0123853
Test L.u==−0.5
(1) L.u = −0.5
F(1, 506)=176.60
Prob >F = 0.07231

Source: Research Data, 2023.

Table 5. Ramsey RESET test using powers of the fitted values of firm value.

Ho: model has no omitted variables
F (6, 501)=10.50
Prob > F = 0.4576

Source: Research Data, 2023.

Table 6. Descriptive statistics.

	Obs	Mean	Std. Deviation	Minimum	Maximum
Tobin’s Q	507	0.607483	0.29501	0.10064	1.60517
ROA	507	0.070471	0.12832	−1.38569	0.92807
ICD	507	0.093378	0.22872	0.00000	1.95371
IO	507	0.690935	0.16545	0.10148	0.96932
Firm size	507	7.33757	1.84722	3.51157	13.69782
LEV	507	2.00880	1.89080	0.08497	9.13304
LIK	507	1.87682	1.52901	0.07963	9.63869

Note: Tobin’s Q – firm value; ROA firm performance; ICD – Intellectual capital disclosure; LEV- Leverage; LIK- Liquidity; IO-Institution ownership; Obs = 507.

Source: Research Data, 2023.

Table 7. Correlation matrix between variables and VIF values.

	Tobin’s Q	ROA	ICD	SIZE	IO	LEV	LIK	VIF
Tobin’s Q	1							–
ROA	0.267**	1						1.24
ICD	0.175**	0.262**	1					1.34
SIZE	−0.507**	0.034	0.179**	1				2.30
IO	0.053	−0.043	−0.106*	−0.235**	1			1.13
LEV	−0.663**	−0.213**	−0.139**	0.634**	−0.046	1		2.14
LIK	−0.230**	0.159**	0.198**	0.445**	−0.294**	0.213**	1	1.37

Note(s): The table presents the correlation matrix between variables of the study: Tobin’s Q – firm value; ROA firm performance; ICD – Intellectual capital disclosure; LEV–Leverage; LIK–Liquidity; IO–Institution ownership; SIZE–firm size ($\text{ln TA}$); Obs = 507; All numbers are rounded to four decimal places; **ρ-value ˂0.05; *ρ-value ˂0.1; VIF ˂10.

Source: Research Data, 2023.

Table 8. Financial performance, intellectual capital disclosure and firm value.

	MODEL 1a		MODEL 2a		MODEL 3b		MODEL 4a
	ß	P>|t|	ß	P>|z|	ß	P>|t|	ß	P>|t|
(Constant)	1.0735** (.152)	7.08	1.1656** (0.114)	10.22	0.484** (0.080)	6.027	1.0424** (0.1507)	6.91
Predictor variables
ROA	0.112** (0.046)	2.44	̲	̲	−0.188** (0.083)	−2.26	0.1264** (0.0459)	2.75
ICD	̲	̲	0.07503** (0.0295)	2.54	̲	̲	0.0769** (0.0295)	2.61
SIZE	−0.0550** (0.018)	−3.00	−0.06413** (0.0128)	−5.01	−0.032 (0.036)	−1.11	−0.0522** (0.0182)	−2.87
IO	−0.0378 (0.0713)	−0.53	−0.05066 (0.0687)	−0.74	−0.022 (0.131)	−0.01	−0.0377 (0.0707)	−0.53
LEV	−0.0123 (0.007)	−1.69	−0.02003** (0.0068)	−2.95	−0.023 (0.013)	−1.55	−0.0107 (0.0072)	−1.49
LIK	−0.0103 (0.007)	−1.45	−0.01032 (0.0069)	−1.49	0.008 (0.013)	0.62	−0.0109 (0.007)	−1.55
Indirect effect [Ɵх→y = ab] 5000 bootstrap sample
			Effect	LLCI		ULCI
Mediation index [indirect effect]			−0.0144572	−0.7900		3.006
Model summary
R	0.6363		0.59153		0.6117	0.6689
R square	0.4049		0.34991		0.3742	0.4474
Adjusted R square	0.3674		0.34315		0.3677	0.5583
F value	38.24**		̲		38.089**	36.08**
Wald chi^2(1)	̲		47.40**		̲	̲
Chi^2 [χ2]	0.0009**		0.89		0.0000**	0.00028**

^a Dependent variable: firm value.

^b Dependent variable: intellectual capital disclosure (ICD).

Note(s): The table presents the regression between variables of the study: Tobin’s Q – firm value; ICD – Intellectual capital disclosure; ROA firm performance; ***ρ-value ˂0.01; **ρ-value ˂0.05; *ρ-value ˂0.1; Obs = 507; standard errors are given in parentheses; **FE/RE: fixed or random effect; χ²(k) <χ²(Hausman) RE ; χ²(k) <χ²(Hausman).

Source: Research Data, 2023.

Table A1. Intellectual capital coding framework.

Internal (structural) capital	External (relational) capital	Human capital
Patents	Brands	Employee
Copyrights	Customers	Education and vocational qualifications
Trademarks	Customer satisfaction and loyalty	Training
Corporate culture	Company reputation	Human resource management
Management processes	Distribution channels	Innovativeness of employees/partners
Information systems	Business collaborations	Recruitment policies
Communication systems	Favourable contracts/licensing	Career opportunities
Financial relations	Public relations	Diversity

Source: Adapted from Bozzolan et al. (2003), Cerbioni and Parbonetti (2007), Petty and Guthrie (2000), Ahmed Haji and Anum Mohd Ghazali, (2013), Martins et al. (2018) and Striukova et al. (2008).

Bozzolan, S., Favotto, F., & Ricceri, F. (2003). Italian annual intellectual capital disclosure: An empirical analysis. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 4(4), 543–558. https://doi.org/10.1108/14691930310504554

 Google Scholar

Cerbioni, F., & Parbonetti, A. (2007). Exploring the effects of corporate governance on intellectual capital disclosure: An analysis of European biotechnology companies. European Accounting Review, 16(4), 791–826. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180701707011

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Petty, R., & Guthrie, J. (2000). Intellectual capital literature review: measurement, reporting and management. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 1(2), 155–176. https://doi.org/10.1108/14691930010348731

 Google Scholar

Ahmed Haji, A., & Anum Mohd Ghazali, N. (2013). The quality and determinants of voluntary disclosures in annual reports of Shari’ah compliant companies in Malaysia. Humanomics, 29(1), 24–42. https://doi.org/10.1108/08288661311299303

 Google Scholar

Martins, M. M., Morais, A. I., Isidro, H., & Laureano, R. (2018). Intellectual capital disclosure: The Portuguese case. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 9(4), 1224–1245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-016-0412-6

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Striukova, L., Unerman, J., & Guthrie, J. (2008). Corporate reporting of intellectual capital: Evidence from UK companies. The British Accounting Review, 40(4), 297–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2008.06.001

 Google Scholar

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, upon reasonable request.