Screening and enhancing intellectual capital consistency: A scoping review of systematised literature reviews

Pedro, Eugenia de Matos; Leitão, João; Alves, Helena Article Screening and enhancing intellectual capital consistency: A scoping review of systematised literature reviews Journal of Innovation & Knowledge (JIK) Provided in Cooperation with: Elsevier Suggested Citation: Pedro, Eugenia de Matos; Leitão, João; Alves, Helena (2025) : Screening and enhancing intellectual capital consistency: A scoping review of systematised literature reviews, Journal of Innovation & Knowledge (JIK), ISSN 2444-569X, Elsevier, Amsterdam, Vol. 10, Iss. 2, pp. 1-23, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2025.100664 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/327566 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Screening and enhancing intellectual capital consistency: A scoping review of systematised literature reviews Eug´ enia Pedro a,* , Jo˜ ao Leit˜ ao a,b , Helena Alves a a NECE – Research Centre for Business Sciences, Department of Management and Economics, Faculty of Human and Social Sciences, Universidade da Beira Interior, Covilh˜ a, Portugal b CEG-IST and ICS, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal ARTICLE INFO JEL codes: O3 research and development Technological change Intellectual property rights O34 intellectual property and intellectual capital Keywords: Digital transformation Digitalisation Ecosystems Entrepreneurship Innovation Intellectual capital Knowledge Sustainability ABSTRACT This scoping review aimed to screen and enhance intellectual capital consistency, providing a general overview of existing systematised literature reviews of intellectual capital. This scoping review addressed five research questions: 1. How did the typology of publications, both theoretical and empirical, evolve considering the different stages of intellectual capital? 2. What are the milestone studies marking the beginning of the five stages of evolution of the intellectual capital framework? 3. How has the intellectual capital construct evolved? 4. What are the main streams of research on intellectual capital and how are they characterised? 5. What are the most relevant topics, gaps, and future trends in the field of intellectual capital? To answer the research questions, a scoping review was conducted following a search of the Web of Science and SCOPUS databases. The final search identified 78 full-text articles, published between 2005 and 2023. The evidence revealed the emergence of new topics and identified 13 clusters. We found evidence of the beginning of the fifth stage around 2018 due to the change in the research paradigm observed in this study and the development of new themes, such as innovation, digitalisation, knowledge, sustainability, and entrepreneurship, contributing to the ecosystem development of cities, regions, and nations. This pioneering scoping review systematised literature reviews about intellectual capital, providing important implications for theory, as it presents paths to follow and relevant indications for the evolving fifth stage of intellectual capital. Introduction Recent years have seen an exponential growth in both the number and diversity of published literature reviews (e.g. integrative literature reviews, systematic reviews, bibliometric analyses, and meta-analyses) on topics related to intellectual capital (IC) (e.g. Ahlawat et al., 2023; Daraio et al., 2023). A preliminary critical assessment of these reviews suggests that although they are justified and contribute to knowledge in this field, they frequently present an array of isolated results. These results are limited to a specific temporal period, different units of analysis (e.g. organisational, regional, and national), a particular organisational type (e.g. companies, industry and public, private, or social institutions), a specific principal component of IC (e.g. human capital, social capital, and structural capital), or a specific form of measurement (e.g. Value Added Intellectual Coefficient (VAIC), Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA), and Balanced Scorecard (BSC) with Key Performance Indicators). For these reasons and because this is an area of research with a large number of published literature reviews, researchers looking for a general synthesis of current knowledge find it especially difficult to obtain a unified synthesis in a single document. In the field of research related to IC, no synthesis is found to simultaneously cover all the published literature reviews; therefore, combining, unifying, and identifying gaps in the literature would indicate future research avenues. Well-drawn syntheses of peer-reviewed research literature generating rigorous results are essential for research (Suri & Hattie, 2013) as long as they are duly justified and successfully carried out (Gough et al., 2012). They provide high-quality analyses, create new knowledge (Suri, 2013), and indicate paths for exploiting knowledge. As highlighted in Gutierrez-Bucheli et al. (2022), these syntheses provide a field of research with a broader and deeper understanding, and are based on knowledge drawn from a given moment (Littell et al., 2008). They also create new ideas for (re)direct research and development (R&D) activities (McMahan & McFarland, 2021) and prepare the ground for more * Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (E. Pedro). Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Innovation & Knowledge journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jik https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2025.100664 Received 3 September 2024; Accepted 27 January 2025 Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 10 (2025) 100664 Available online 4 February 2025 2444-569X/© 2025 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. on behalf of Journal of Innovation & Knowledge. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ ). reflection and innovation in research and practice by current and future scholars (Harlen & Deakin Crick, 2004). Although some methodological aspects are common to all types of literature reviews, a fundamental consideration for researchers is the need to evaluate the most appropriate literature review technique to perform their work according to the research aims, purposes, time limit, and other practical elements (Gutierrez-Bucheli et al., 2022). As stated in Arksey and O’Malley (2005), this rapid growth in literature reviews has resulted in a significant number of terms describing approaches which, despite their different names, share certain essential, common characteristics, namely collection, assessment, and presentation of available research evidence. It is also worth highlighting systematic reviews, meta-analyses, quick reviews, (traditional) literature reviews, literature surveys, integrative literature reviews, essays, narrative reviews, critical reviews, research syntheses, structured reviews, bibliometric analyses, and scoping reviews (ScRs). In addition, as underlined by Pham et al. (2014), due to the variability in performing these reviews, methodological standardisation is necessary to ensure the usefulness and strength of the evidence. An ScR is a relatively new approach (see Arksey & O’Malley, 2005; Westphaln et al., 2021) for synthesising knowledge. ScR can synthesise existing knowledge and identify trends and gaps to inform other research, policies, and practices (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005; Levac et al., 2010; Tricco et al., 2016; Westphaln et al., 2021). Mays et al. (2001) advocated that ScR aims to map the key concepts that underpin a particular area of research and the main sources and types of evidence available. According to the same authors, it can be conducted as an independent project, especially when the area is complex or has not been comprehensively reviewed. As outlined in Munn et al. (2018), ScR can be conducted when the associated goals are as follows: (i) identifying gaps in knowledge, (ii) defining the field of a given body of literature, (iii) clarifying concepts, or (iv) investigating how the research was performed. In addition, ScR is useful for examining emerging evidence when it is still unclear which other, more specific questions can be asked and addressed more thoroughly, for example, through a systematic review (Armstrong et al., 2011; Munn et al., 2018). Arksey and O’Malley (2005) highlighted that an ScR differs from a systematic review in that the latter typically focuses on a clearly defined question for which appropriate study designs can be identified in advance. ScR addresses expansive topics for which numerous study designs may be applicable. According to these authors, a systematic review aims to provide answers to questions derived from a relatively narrow range of quality-assessed studies, whereas an ScR is less likely to address highly specific research questions or assess the quality of the included studies. For these reasons, and as there is a large number of literature reviews published on IC that consider the credibility and impact of these previous studies as forms of synthesised knowledge, this approach is suitable for mapping the breadth and depth of the literature on the topic of IC for two reasons: (I) ScR is considered an ideal tool to determine the field or coverage of a set of literature on a given topic or area of study and provides a clear indication of the amount of literature and studies available, as well as a general view (broad or detailed) of their focus (Munn et al., 2018); and (II) it offers an opportunity to identify key concepts, research gaps, and types and sources of evidence to inform practice, providing contributions and implications for policy and research (Daudt et al., 2013). Following Arksey and O’Malley (2005), this ScR was based on four main motivations: (1) to examine the state-of-the-art and conduct a systematic search of the literature on IC for articles published in the form of literature reviews; (2) to map the characteristics and variety of methodologies used in these reviews, synthesise, and share research results; (3) to identify and examine the challenges and limitations reported in carrying out these reviews and highlight important gaps in the literature; and (4) to make recommendations to improve the approach to IC, or the need and/or viability of carrying out a systematic review, improving the consistency of knowledge, and opening up new avenues of study. To achieve the goals of the current ScR, the structure followed by Arksey and O’Malley (2005) was adopted with the following five steps: (i) specifying the research question(s); (ii) identifying the relevant literature; (iii) selecting studies; (iv) mapping data; and (v) summarising, synthesising, and reporting the results. A clear articulation of the research question(s) was the first step in conducting the ScR. Initially, the questions and purpose of the research were conceptualised based on a preliminary rapid literature review (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005; Westphaln et al., 2021). Considering that the topic of IC has evolved and grown in terms of articles published, journals used, and the number of researchers (e.g. Pedro et al., 2018a; Massaro et al., 2018; Bellucci et al., 2021), its focus has evolved since the 1960s. It now includes four delimited periods and an ongoing fifth stage (e.g. Massaro et al., 2018), requiring a deeper understanding of the evolutionary pathways of these stages, especially the fourth and fifth ones, concerning the remarkable achievements and gaps identified. In the current approach, the theoretical lens is framed within the scope of several studies. First, neo-institutional and legitimacy theories converge in advocating that organisations’ positioning is created through legitimacy search mechanisms targeted to deal with both external and internal pressures from stakeholders and the surrounding environment (van Vught et al., 2008). Second, the intellectual positioning theory analyses the movement through which knowledge and experience are mobilised to inform a high-value intervention (e.g. intellectual or intangible assets) in the public domain (Eyal & Buchholz, 2010). Third, the agency theory provides alternative insights by examining the economic characteristics of organisations in relation to the behavioural implications for governance and efficient resource allocation mechanisms (Kivist¨ o & Zalyevska, 2016). Nevertheless, it must be noted that our cornerstone literature stream is the systems theory, since it can be applied to all development stages of IC and can be used to assess the evolution, growth, changes, and adaptation pathways of IC theory-related literature (Yawson & Paros, 2023). The first stage of IC goes back to the end of the 1980s and continues into the 1990s, being directed to develop a theoretical framework (Pedro et al., 2018a). In this stage, the IC theory focused on generating or sourcing value from organisational resources (Edvinsson & Malone, 1997). According to Stewart (1997) and Edvinsson and Malone (1997), IC became a viable alternative for competitive leverage (Allee, 1997) as it integrated essential business components. IC theory emphasised balancing human, organisational, and customer capital to optimise intangible assets. It argued that intangible assets have become crucial to achieving competitive advantage in a knowledge-based economy (Sveiby, 1997; Stewart, 1997; Edvinsson & Malone, 1997). In this context, the importance of the systems theory, which links the individual to the process and then to the organisation’s performance, was highlighted (Yawson & Paros, 2023). IC shifted from a static to a dynamic theory (Harris, 2000). The second stage, which began in 2000, was more incrementally innovative and evidence-based, with a line of research focusing on IC measurement, management, and communication. It conceptualised specific aspects of IC, such as accounting, reporting, and measuring IC, and created different taxonomies that have helped define and group different methods for IC assessment. The third stage, which began in 2004, developed implications arising from the use of IC in organisational management. It focused on practical analysis with deeper implications for IC management. The knowledge, skills, and abilities of individuals chosen for management and leadership roles were crucial factors in determining information access and shaping the structure of an organisation and its internal systems (Harris, 2000). The fourth stage focused on IC ecosystems at the national, regional, and city levels (Dumay, 2013) and began in 2004. It emphasised connecting knowledge across internal and external systems to enhance performance (Harris, 2000). It also extended IC value creation to external environments, particularly to stakeholders (Secundo et al., 2016), including the transfer of knowledge from universities to society E. Pedro et al. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 10 (2025) 100664 2 (Secundo et al., 2018). Dumay et al. (2020) argued that IC should support an ecosystem of various organisations rather than simply utilising its environment. A complex dynamic system is also made up of individuals who work for an organisation, the internal system they utilise, and the external entities they deal with (Mokhlis et al., 2024). According to Massaro et al. (2018), it is in the fourth stage that researchers began to analyse the interrelations between the three pillars of sustainability in the field of IC: economic, environmental, and social, initiating the fifth stage of IC. The concept of sustainability also applies to the systems theory because it comprises human capital and the rest of nature (Cabezas et al., 2005). Massaro et al. (2018) underlined the need to consider different points of view on the value of IC and sustainability practices, together with a discussion about how their conclusions support the fifth stage of IC research. Dumay et al. (2018) and Dumay et al. (2020) corroborated this premise, indicating the start of the fifth stage. Considering the above literature review and the inherent challenges of the fourth and fifth stages of IC research, the following research questions were formulated: RQ1.How has the typology of theoretical and empirical papers changed over time, considering the different phases of IC? RQ2.Which milestone studies signal the start of the five phases of the developing IC framework? RQ3.What is the evolution of the IC construct? RQ4.What are the primary IC research streams at the moment, and how are they defined? RQ5.In the realm of IC, what are the most pertinent theoretical perspectives, contributions, topics and emerging trends? This study provides new insights and critical views based on an ScR of existing literature reviews in the IC context and is structured as follows: First, the methodology adopted is described in detail; second, the evidence obtained is presented and discussed; and finally, the conclusions and limitations of the study are presented. Methodology Identifying the relevant literature The search queries were elaborated and refined through brainstorming by the research team. In defining the scope of this study, the aim was to broadly identify the literature reviews published in the realm of IC to address the research questions previously raised (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005). The strategy adopted involved a search for research evidence in electronic databases, which usually contain bibliographic details and abstracts of published material. To be included in the ScR, reviews or articles containing all types of literature reviews published in peer-reviewed journals until the end of 2023 must be included. Because of the cost and time involved in translation, only materials written in English were considered, as this is the most universal language used to disseminate the results of scientific research worldwide. This may be considered a limitation because several relevant studies were ignored. According to Arksey and O’Malley (2005), the search of electronic databases should consider (i) the selection of databases to be used, (ii) the appropriate types of terms or related keywords for the research as well as the key concepts, and (iii) a test of the search query to fine-tune it. To identify potentially relevant documents, Clarivate’s Web of Science (WOS) and SCOPUS databases were searched. These two databases were chosen because they are the most commonly used in this type of research (e.g. Pedro et al., 2018a; Leit˜ ao et al., 2023; Pereira et al., 2023); these sources include different domains and cover research in the human and social sciences in general, alongside a diversified set of management and economics topics. We searched for articles with their ‘title’, ‘abstract’, and ‘keywords’ to ensure the greatest coverage possible. Since IC is a broad concept with multiple meanings (Mustapha & Abdullah, 2004), the search terms used were as follows: ‘intellectual capital’, ‘intellectual asset’, ‘intellectual resource’, ‘intangible capital’, ‘intangible asset’, ‘intangible resource’, ‘knowledge capital*’, ‘knowledge asset’, ‘knowledge resource’, and ‘knowledge management’, to ensure that no important document was excluded. Finally, the above-mentioned terms were checked with the ‘*’ wildcard to include singular and plural versions, and related words. We developed search strategies to assess the quality of the collected documents. First, only articles published in peer-reviewed journals were accepted; second, the quality of texts was evaluated by reading complete texts whenever the title, abstract, and keywords were not conclusive; and third, the number of citations in Clarivate’s WOS and Scopus databases were checked. After collecting articles from the databases and eliminating all duplicates, all documents were analysed individually, considering that the core focus of the study was IC. They should include a systematic search of at least one database to ensure that the articles are studied based on a search for random data. If the full text was inaccessible, the article was eliminated. Only five recent documents (from 2022 to 2023) without citations were found. After reading these documents, we felt the need to include them given their focal relationship with the ScR topic. Table 1 provides a general overview of the procedures used in this study. Selection of studies In this phase, 822 documents were identified in Clarivate’s WOS and 1120 in SCOPUS, resulting in 1942 papers. The final search results were exported directly from Clarivate’s WOS and SCOPUS to Mendeley and duplicates were removed. The Mendeley platform was chosen for four reasons: (i) the possibility of importing directly from both databases; (ii) the possibility of joining all documents in a single file; (iii) individual access to all the information relating to each document, including the abstract; and (iv) the possibility of exporting the data from all documents to a format accepted by VosViewer, which facilitates the mapping of some data to describe the sample. After eliminating 572 duplicates, the titles and summaries were read or the full paper was read when analysis of the former elements was not conclusive, leading to the elimination of articles that did not meet the inclusion criteria listed in Table 1. The final selection included 78 studies published in peer-reviewed journals. Fig. 1 presents the ScR protocol and the total number of selected documents. The following section maps the data through thematic analysis and indicates how the ontological organisation was carried out. Mapping, extraction, and treatment of data Following Westphaln et al. (2021), this phase included the mapping, extraction, and treatment of data. Data treatment is defined as the process of synthesising and interpreting qualitative data according to the topic studied, using a ‘descriptive-analytical’ method, understood as the application of a common analytical structure (see, Arksey & O’Malley, 2005). It is therefore necessary to determine the variables of interest for data extraction (qualitative and quantitative) according to the research questions previously raised, and to develop a graphic data structure. According to Westphaln et al. (2021), data analysis was carried out in two steps, namely: (i) quantitative (descriptive analysis of the ScR) and numerical analysis of the data (that is, RQ1); and (ii) qualitative (evolution of publications over time) and content analysis (i.e. RQ2, RQ3, RQ4, and RQ5). Summarize, synthesise, and report Descriptive analyses First, we present the results of several descriptive analyses, providing E. Pedro et al. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 10 (2025) 100664 3 an overview of the existing literature on IC theory. According to Massaro et al. (2016), different indicators can be used to evaluate trends in publications, such as the number of articles published, year of publication, type of study, focus of study, and authors’ productivity. This first analysis provides a preliminary map of the existing literature and identifies possible gaps for future research. Fig. 2 shows a timeline of the total number of publications over time, indicating the study period and focus. Regarding RQ1 (How has the typology of theoretical and empirical papers changed over time, considering the different phases of IC?), the analysis of the timeline presented above (see Fig. 2) led to the following preliminary conclusions: •Systematised literature reviews of IC began in 2005, with a significant increase in 2021. •New topics emerged, such as innovation in 2017, big data technologies in 2018, entrepreneurship, ecosystems, and sustainable development in 2020, green IC in 2022, and digital transformation in 2023. •Some individualised sectors stood out, such as education (2018 and 2021), health (2020 and 2021), and electricity (2023). •According to three studies (2007, 2011, and 2019), human capital was the most important IC component. •The most studied topics were IC measurement (seven studies), IC disclosure (eight studies), IC and performance (seven studies), and IC and innovation (five studies). Fig. 3 shows the authors who participated in at least two studies, methodology used, and journals that published them. The authors with the most publications were J. Dumay (6), J. Guthrie (3), and E. Pedro (3). The most commonly used methodology was a structured literature review, and the journal with the greatest number of publications was the Journal of Intellectual Capital. Content analysis To answer RQ2, RQ3, RQ4, and RQ5, a cluster mapping structure aligned by theme was established. The number of clusters was chosen by all the authors through personal evaluations. A similar procedure was followed to select topics. After careful analysis of the 78 papers, there was a consensual agreement to use the model with 13 clusters in chronological order, as shown in Fig. 4. Fig. 5 presents a topic roadmap of the clusters, with the areas marking the beginning of each cluster and the IC stages to which they belong (concerning RQ2 and RQ3). Regarding Fig. 5 and to answer RQ2 (Which milestone studies signal the start of the five phases of the developing IC framework?), we found that although the initial research was on ‘General IC’ with Marr and Moustaghfir (2005), which corresponds to all stages of IC, it was only in 2007 that systematised reviews started to focus on specific themes, namely Lerro and Carlucci (2007) for ‘National & Regional IC’ and Zula and Chermack (2007) for ‘IC Components’, included in the second and fourth stages, respectively. Subsequently, in 2015, there were themes located in the third stage of the IC cluster ‘IC & non-profit and public sector’, which started with a structured literature review by Dumay et al. (2015). After 2017 and 2018, there was a gradual increase in the number of systematisations in the literature. After the work of Buenechea-Elberdin (2017) and Grimaldi et al. (2017), both in the ‘IC & Innovation’ cluster, and de Santis and Presti (2018) in ‘IC & digitalisation’, whose themes belong to the fourth stage, more areas were linked to the change to the fifth stage of IC mentioned by Dumay et al. (2018), Massaro et al. (2018), and Dumay et al. (2020). These new areas comprised ‘IC & knowledge’, headed by the reviews by Garcia-Perez et al. (2020) and Paoloni et al. (2020); ‘Sustainable IC’ with the systematic literature reviews by Secundo et al. (2020); and ‘IC & Entrepreneurship’ with the mapping by Crupi et al. (2020). To address RQ3 (What is the evolution of the IC construct?), it is worth mentioning that the evolution of the IC construct was influenced by several key factors, as shown by the IC cluster roadmap in Fig. 5. First, the management of intangible resources has become vital in maintaining competitive advantage in a rapidly evolving technology. Second, the measurement and optimisation of IC have been possible, with the development of new tools to do so at the organisational, regional, and national levels. Third, the business paradigm has shifted. IC research has transitioned from an initial focus on the knowledge economy to a new paradigm emphasising innovation, digitalisation, knowledge, entrepreneurship, sustainability, and value creation through Table 1 Searching and researching procedures: Inclusion versus exclusion criteria. Procedure Inclusion criteria Exclusion criteria Databases Clarivate’s WOS and SCOPUS All other databases Document types Article or Review article All other document types Area of study Intellectual capital Whose main theme is not IC Type of study ‘Systematic review’ or ‘metaanalysis’ or ‘rapid review’ or ‘literature review’ or ‘narrative review’ or ‘research synthesis’ or ‘structured review’ or ‘bibliometric analysis’ or ‘scoping review’ Documents that do not fit the inclusion criteria Temporal basis From appearance until the end of 2023 - Language English All other languages Source type Journals Not peer-reviewed journals Subject area Management, business, economics, and accounting All other areas Search within Title, abstract, keywords - Search terms ‘Intellectual capital’ or ‘intellectual asset*’ or ‘intellectual resource*’ or ‘intangible capital’ or ‘intangible asset*’ or ‘intangible resource*’ or ‘knowledge capital*’ or ‘knowledge asset*’ or ‘knowledge resource*’ or ‘knowledge management’ - Article selection criteria Title in the scope of IC; Abstract in the scope of IC; Must include a systematic search in at least one database. Elimination of duplicates; title out of scope; abstract out of the scope; does not include a systematic search in at least one database; and full text not accessible. Search queries (made in January 2024) Clarivate’s WOS query: Results for ‘Intellectual capital’ or ‘intellectual asset*’ or ‘intellectual resource*’ or ‘intangible capital’ or ‘intangible asset*’ or ‘intangible resource*’ or ‘knowledge capital*’ or ‘knowledge asset*’ or ‘knowledge resource*’ or ‘knowledge management’ (Topic) AND ‘Systematic review’ Or ‘Systematic literature review’ Or ‘Meta-analysis’ Or ‘Rapid Review’ Or ‘Literature Review’ Or ‘Literature Survey’ Or ‘Essay’ Or ‘Narrative Review’ Or ‘Research Synthesis’ Or ‘Structured Review’ Or ‘Bibliometric Analysis’ Or ‘Bibliometric study’ Or ‘Scoping Review’ (Topic) and Article or Review Article (Document Types) and Management or Business or Economics (Web of Science Categories) and English (Languages) SCOPUS query: (TITLE-ABS-KEY (‘Intellectual capital’ OR ‘intellectual asset*’ OR ‘intellectual resource*’ OR ‘intangible capital’ OR ‘intangible asset*’ OR ‘intangible resource*’ OR ‘knowledge capital*’ OR ‘knowledge asset*’ OR ‘knowledge resource*’ OR ‘knowledge management’) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (‘Systematic Review’ OR ‘Systematic Literature Review’ OR ‘Meta-analysis’ OR ‘Rapid Review’ OR ‘Literature Review’ OR ‘Literature Survey’ OR ‘Essay’ OR ‘Narrative Review’ OR ‘Research Synthesis’ OR ‘Structured Review’ OR ‘Bibliometric Analysis’ OR ‘Bibliometric Study’ OR ‘Scoping Review’) AND PUBYEAR <2024 AND (LIMIT-TO (SUBJAREA, ‘BUSI’)) AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, ‘ar’) OR LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, ‘re’)) AND (LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE, ‘English’)) Source: Own elaboration. E. Pedro et al. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 10 (2025) 100664 4 new business models. Fourth, IC plays an increasingly important role in the knowledge economy because, in this context, IC leads to the activation of capital formation processes and the emergence of other, more technological industries (e.g. Industry 4.0), as well as ecosystems. Finally, the beginning of the fifth stage of IC and related main research streams has been discussed. However, there is a need to explore emerging areas of research, such as IC and cybersecurity, knowledge management and intangible assets, disclosure practices, big data, and the integration of theoretical frameworks for strategy and value creation contexts, and to establish relationships between IC and variables such as scientific production, innovation, and the strategic use of resources in higher education institutions. Clusters To answer the two remaining research questions, RQ4 (What are the primary IC research streams at the moment, and how are they defined?) and RQ5 (In the realm of IC, what are the most pertinent theoretical perspectives, contributions, topics, and emerging trends?), a summary is presented in Table 2 by cluster, authors, and RQ4 and RQ5, providing a theoretical perspective and topics covered, and addressing principal Fig. 1. ScR protocol used for final selection purposes (PRISMA-ScR flow diagram adapted from Tricco et al. (2018)). Source: Own elaboration. E. Pedro et al. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 10 (2025) 100664 5 Fig. 2. Timeline of systematised literature reviews on IC. Source: Own elaboration. E. Pedro et al. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 10 (2025) 100664 6 Fig. 3. Authors participating in at least two published studies, methodologies used, and journals publishing the studies. Source: Own elaboration. E. Pedro et al. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 10 (2025) 100664 7 contributions and future trends 1 . Given the various perspectives presented in Table 2, the evolving construction of IC was shaped by changes in the business scenario, the need to increase the effectiveness of measurement and optimisation exercises, and the growing importance of intangible resources for management at different levels: individual, organisational, regional, and national. Based on the information provided above, arising from the synthesis of the relevant literature by study clusters included in this ScR, it can be inferred that IC’s intersection with business models, leveraging IC assets for new value propositions, and research oriented towards ecosystems are important areas for future exploration. However, several contradictions and inconsistencies were observed in this study. It is clear from the findings in the Discussion section that even though the text advocates for more comprehensive IC frameworks and practices, current implementation and research are still fragmented and inconsistent across several areas and lack an integrative theoretical framework. Fig. 4. Cluster model development. Source: Own elaboration. 1 For more information about the thematic analysis and ontological organisation procedures applied in the methodology, see the Appendix. E. Pedro et al. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 10 (2025) 100664 8 Table 2 (continued) Clusters/Research Questions Authors Theoretical Perspectives Contributions Topics Emerging Trends RQ4 RQ4 RQ5 RQ5 ■ Related to IC and digital transformation, there is a marked evolution of research areas encompassing business, management, finance and economics, evolving dynamically over time. The literature progresses from human capital to KM and digital transformation, signalling a highly concentrated transition period. platforms in IC creation and dissemination and investigating the role of digital technologies in protecting and managing intellectual property. IC & Knowledge Garcia-Perez et al., 2020; Paoloni et al., 2020; Faraji et al., 2022 ■ Institutional complexity and agency relationships in KM strategies have been identified as determinants of suboptimal KM strategies. This topic provides valuable insights into KM and IC practices within professional sports, elucidating their bidirectional relationship and offering valuable insights for stakeholders seeking to optimise their KM strategies. ■ There is a call for integration efforts to understand KM, IC, and entrepreneurship research interrelations better, and maximise their collective impact. Emphasising the need to integrate KM, IC, and entrepreneurship research highlights their significant roles in innovation and firm value, while suggesting avenues for further study to explore their synergistic effects. ■ Limited depth in IC research is found, particularly regarding industries studied, methodological differences, and the involvement of theories. ■ Emerging research areas are identified, such as: The Mediating Role; Entrepreneurial Orientation; and KM. This shift underscores the importance of adapting organisational systems to leverage these emerging concepts, providing insights for policymakers to inform regulations related to IC. ■ Nonetheless, there is still a lack of understanding of how decision-makers’ interactions affect KM strategies concerning IC investments in knowledge-based organisations. Thus, future studies can investigate how managers’ characteristics influence the formation of beliefs, which in turn shape KM strategies regarding IC investments. ■ Research must focus on identifying intellectual or entrepreneurial drivers for innovation and examining the extent to which entrepreneurs use KM and IC for innovation and knowledge transfer purposes. ■ Some recommendations are to explore IC research more comprehensively by examining industries studied, methodological approaches (quantitative, qualitative or mixed), data collection methods, and the predominant theoretical perspectives shaping research in the IC domain. Sustainable IC Secundo et al., 2020; Mehmood & Hanaysha, 2022; Paramba et al., 2023; Ahlawat et al., 2023 ■ Several critical areas to foster sustainable development are highlighted, including IC in the private sector and in the public sector. Thematic clusters emerge, focusing on IC for sustainable development across sectors. There is an emphasis on leveraging IC to achieve SDGs, particularly in the context of technology policy development. Relevance of IC and sustainable development in technology policies is highlighted. ■ IC is crucial for start-up innovation and competitiveness, particularly in sustainable performance. Research enhances understanding of IC research’s conceptual structure and its impact on sustainable start-up performance, contributing to knowledge expansion in the field. ■ Corporate social responsibility (CSR) and green IC (GIC) are topical issues. CSR drives GIC, green innovation, and competitive advantage, with higher CSR associated with elevated GIC levels and stronger competitive advantages. A nuanced model for GIC is introduced, highlighting the moderating roles of visibility and transparency, and acknowledging the significance of human capital. It is suggested that public visibility, transparency, ■ Uncertainty regarding the mediation effect of GIC and green innovation. Lack of longitudinal studies on GIC and its consequences on firm value and profitability. Additionally, the impact of training and education on green human capital remains underexplored. ■ While GIC influences organisational performance positively, it is necessary to understand its dynamics with performance metrics, requiring further research to elucidate. ■ Limited understanding of the interactions between the components of IC in (continued on next page) E. Pedro et al. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 10 (2025) 100664 15 Table 2 (continued) Clusters/Research Questions Authors Theoretical Perspectives Contributions Topics Emerging Trends RQ4 RQ4 RQ5 RQ5 environmental dynamics, and regulations moderate relationships between CSR, green innovation, and competitive advantage. The importance of effective GIC management in modern economies is stressed, aiding in policy and practice improvements. initial studies. This gap underlines the need for wide-ranging studies on how the different aspects of IC interact to influence the success and sustainability of start-ups. Adopting a more holistic approach to study IC in start-ups will help to identify interactions and synergies between their various components and improve understanding. By considering the interconnected nature of the components of IC, researchers can provide wide-ranging information about how start-ups can make the most of IC for success. IC & Entrepreneur ship Crupi et al., 2020; Chaudhary et al., 2023 ■ There has been increasing scholarly attention paid to ICentrepreneurship since the early 2000s, with theoretical identification. This contributes significantly to understanding IC in entrepreneurship strategies, presenting a research agenda to inspire further exploration in entrepreneurial and managerial studies. ■ A holistic approach in studying IC in entrepreneurship research emphasises interactions and synergies among IC components to better understand their impact on the performance and growth of new enterprises. ■ Current research emphasises knowledge management, organisational learning, IC, and absorptive capacity in entrepreneurial firms. ■ The predominant themes in entrepreneurial firms are knowledge management; IC and entrepreneurial orientation; organisational learning and entrepreneurial orientation; and absorptive capacity and entrepreneurial orientation. Analysis of those themes offers a theoretical model explaining how IC influences firm-level entrepreneurial behaviour, thus contributing to a dynamic business environment. ■ A more holistic view of IC in research on entrepreneurship will help to monitor the interactions and synergies between the different components of IC, contributing to broad understanding of how IC influences entrepreneurial behaviour and performance. ■ A suggestion for studies on the association between IC and the capacity to leverage knowledge assets in dynamic business environments. ■ Suggestion to explore enabling internal and external mechanisms and configurations of IC influencing the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and KM. Investigating these mechanisms will shed light on how organisations can effectively leverage their IC to foster entrepreneurial behaviour and innovation. It is also recommended to incorporate various dimensions driving entrepreneurial orientation and knowledge management, such as the role of knowledge resources and capabilities, organisational routines, structure, culture, digitalisation, and human resource practices. Understanding the multifaceted nature of these factors and their (continued on next page) E. Pedro et al. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 10 (2025) 100664 16 This evolution, which in the first stage gives shape to a line of research positioning IC as a determinant of competitive advantage, changes in the second stage to a development supported by empirical proof (Pedro et al., 2018a). This highlights a line of research focused on aspects linked to the identification of its components (Zula & Chermack, 2007; Matthies, 2014; C´ ezanne et al., 2019; Alan & K¨ oker, 2021; Goswami & Agrawal, 2020), measurement models (Guthrie et al., 2012; Verbano & Crema, 2013; Ferenhof et al., 2015; Tsakalerou, 2015; Wudhikarn et al., 2018; Ferreira et al., 2021; Van Criekingen et al., 2022; De Almeida et al., 2022; Cosa et al., 2023; Paoloni et al., 2023; Santosa et al., 2023), performance and accounting (Crook et al., 2011; Inkinen, 2015; Pedro et al., 2018b; Albertini & Berger-Remy, 2019; Martín-de Castro et al., 2019; Bryl, 2020; Demartini & Beretta, 2020, 2022; Shakina et al., 2020; Garanina et al., 2021; Gravili et al., 2021; Pigola et al., 2021; Daraio et al., 2023; Silva Júnior et al., 2023), and disclosure (Castilla-Polo & Gallardo-V´ azquez, 2016; Castilla-Polo & Ruiz-Rodríguez, 2017; Cuozzo et al., 2017; Dumay & Guthrie, 2017; Vanini & Rieg, 2019; Bryl & Fijalkowska, 2020; Rieg & Vanini, 2023) of IC. In the third stage, studies start to consider different types of organisations, such as non-profit organisations and the public sector (see e.g. Dumay et al., 2015; Bisogno et al., 2018; Paoloni et al., 2020; Paoloni et al., 2021; Iskandar et al., 2021;Civitillo et al., 2022), emphasising the importance of studying and measuring IC, for example, in higher education and the health sector. In the fourth stage, the IC ecosystems of cities, regions, and nations are highlighted (Lerro & Carlucci, 2007; Labra & S´ anchez; 2013, 2017; Orjala 2021), with topics related to innovation (Buenechea-Elberdin, 2017; Grimaldi et al., 2017; Gallego et al., 2020; Ali et al., 2021; Nejjari & Aamoum, 2022; Park et al., 2023) and digitalisation (de Santis & Presti, 2018; Yilmaz & Tuzlukaya, 2023), ending at what is already considered the beginning of the fifth stage (Dumay et al., 2018; Dumay et al., 2020). This new stage explores how IC is linked to knowledge (Garcia-Perez et al., 2020; Paoloni et al., 2020; Faraji et al., 2022) sustainability and green IC (Secundo et al., 2020; Mehmood & Hanaysha, 2022; Paramba et al., 2023; Ahlawat et al., 2023), and entrepreneurship (Crupi et al., 2020; Chaudhary et al., 2023). Returning to the statement in the introduction about the theoretical cornerstone of the current ScR—that is, the systems theory aligned with the vision of Mokhlis et al. (2024)—one system cannot be optimised without considering the other, as this would lead to deficiencies, asymmetries, market failures, imbalances, and distinct sources of externalities. Thus, the economic, environmental, social, educational, political, and cultural levels of systems must be simultaneously maximised for organisations to operate effectively. These strata represent ecosystems with dynamic evolution. The proposal of an IC ecosystem for future research directions signifies the evolution of IC research towards an interdisciplinary approach and sustainable development goals, as stated in Lin and Edvinsson (2020). Since the approach to measuring IC depends on many variables of its activity, it can be difficult to draw clear boundaries between the divisions and relationships of various measured elements (Ozhiganov et al., 2021). According to the same authors, the first postulate of the systems theory suggests that separate IC measurements and indicators cannot reflect the multilevel, multidimensional nature of knowledge. In addition, underlining the conclusion of Martín-de Castro et al. (2019), the emergence of new research streams on IC, such as IC in new business models, and its role in social capital and human resource practices, indicates and links the interdisciplinary nature of IC research. As illustrated in Ozhiganov et al. (2021), the development of an integrated systems model is of paramount importance for innovative companies, given that intangible assets play a pivotal role in the success of contemporary competitive and continuously evolving landscapes. Accordingly, the selected indicators facilitate comprehensive research and monitoring of each IC component, ensuring a balanced and unbiased analysis for any given segment. This model should incorporate a range of analytical criteria, including the type of model, methodologies employed, IC calculation formulae, and their respective advantages and limitations. This approach facilitates the comparison of disparate innovation strategies, particularly when monitoring alterations in a company’s IC levels. In addition, it has the potential to be implemented at local, regional, or national IC levels. Regarding gaps and future studies, our discussion focused especially on the last three years (2021, 2022, and 2023), as these are the years that best identify current gaps and future trends. In general, Bellucci et al. (2021) highlighted the need for new research related to IC reporting and disclosure, in line with Rieg and Vanini’s (2023) conclusion that the relationships and interdependencies between different IC categories are not well understood. Another suggestion is to study the relationship between IC and knowledge management, financial performance, market value (Bellucci et al., 2021), scientific production, and innovation (Quintero-Quintero et al., 2021). Emerging research areas have already been suggested, such as IC, cybersecurity, business research methods (Dabi´ c et al., 2020), the role of IC in innovation, and big data (Bamel et al., 2022). Related to the NIC and RIC, Orjala (2021) draws attention to the need to use measures that better capture the use of technology, use of different indicators considering countries’ different levels of development, and the need for a deeper study of the connections between the NIC research community and national data policies. Concerning the components of IC, Alan and K¨ oker (2021) highlighted that the main topics for future studies are innovation, entrepreneurship, knowledge management, performance, leadership, technology, and human resources. For IC and performance, Garanina et al. (2021) stated that research should go beyond implementation practices within a single company to observe how intangibles generate usefulness and social and environmental value for the whole system. Gravili et al. (2021) proposed that Big Data analysis could be a true means of formalising and structuring research, as there is little theoretical or empirical research on this topic, with limited means and variables available to code this knowledge. Pigola et al. (2021) proposed investigating knowledge capital as a dynamic asset in future studies and its effects in different contexts and Table 2 (continued) Clusters/Research Questions Authors Theoretical Perspectives Contributions Topics Emerging Trends RQ4 RQ4 RQ5 RQ5 impact on entrepreneurial orientation will provide a more comprehensive understanding of how organisations can cultivate an entrepreneurial mindset and effectively manage their knowledge assets. Source: Own elaboration. E. Pedro et al. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 10 (2025) 100664 17 measurements to obtain a clear separation between IC resources (human and structural capital) and IC in action (relational and knowledge capital). Finally, Silva Júnior et al. (2023) indicated that companies in the energy sector must incorporate more aspects related to the management of intangibles into their day-to-day activities. Concerning the measurement of IC by Van Criekingen et al. (2022), further work is needed, both concerning the estimation of ‘technical’ aspects, such as depreciation rates and deflators, and the continued testing and comparison of different measurement efforts. Cosa et al. (2023) envisaged future research exploring the interplay between IC components, technology, innovation, and network-building strategies for business resilience. Additionally, there is a need to understand IC’s impact on specific industries (automotive, transport, and hospitality), social development goals, and digital transformation performance. Paoloni et al. (2023) indicated that most studies deal with IC measurement and internal and external IC disclosure, highlighting the need to apply an integrated framework that combines agency, stakeholder, and legitimacy theories. Therefore, future studies should analyse the potential of IC as a strategic tool capable of reducing information asymmetries and transaction costs and generating a network of relationships with stakeholders based on trust and transparency. For Santosa et al. (2023), future research may include variables such as innovation and relational capital, as they might be hidden factors in the inconsistency of VAIC, as well as the impact of modified VAIC on financial and non-financial performance. Another research avenue regards the link between IC and corporate governance as well as sustainability issues, especially in the context of a knowledge-based and green economy. Related to IC and non-profit and public sectors, Paoloni et al. (2021) suggested that future research on higher education could explore relational capital and networks with a focus on tools that are useful in promoting and emphasising the effectiveness of the ‘third mission’. For performance and disclosure, another perspective that can be elaborated on involves investigating the methodologies for both reporting and evaluating IC, which is seen as an asset that can improve university performance. Gender reporting in universities is another field that should be investigated in the future. Concerning IC in social organisations, Iskandar et al. (2021) highlighted the need for innovative and creative young minds to resolve the biggest challenges faced. Civitillo et al. (2022) found that there is still some reticence within non-profit organisations to consider the importance of IC resources, more specifically related to social capital, which should now be considered a relevant asset in creating value for any socioeconomic organisation. As for IC and business models, Alvino et al. (2021) pointed out the need for openness to investment solutions that are able to implement knowledge management processes, as well as the use of innovative technological systems that favour knowledge sharing and optimisation of IC’s potential. Another relevant aspect, mentioned by Baima et al. (2021), is the scarce scientific literature on the topic, suggesting more studies to focus on firms’ capacity to create new products and value propositions, enter new markets, and develop new pricing models through the strategic use of their IC, which underlines the lack of empirical studies in different geographical contexts. These authors stated that while studies focus on the impact of IC components on business performance, there is a gap in understanding the value-creation side of the business model, studying the social and environmental value approach as opposed to economic value, and assessing how IC and its components contribute to solving social and environmental problems. Few studies focus on aspects of the business model’s value creation and co-creation, especially regarding the capacity to stimulate innovation in the business model itself. The same authors also underlined the emergence of green IC, favouring the creation of value for the community, environment, workers, and territory. They also claimed that there should be a greater focus on studying the role of knowledge, information, and relationships in developing business models with social and environmental impacts. Regarding IC and innovation, Ali et al. (2021) provided evidence for studying the relationship between IC and innovation performance. The authors highlighted the importance of proper measurement methods and the amalgamation of constructs in this area. They emphasised the need to strengthen empirical investigations at the regional and national levels to gain a better understanding of IC components and innovation performance relationships, which may contribute considerably to organisational policies. Park et al. (2023) pointed out that intangible assets influence science-based innovation through academic spinoffs. The literature has a reasonably uniform focus on various levels of contribution to the scientific innovation process, with a slight emphasis on factors at the firm, university, and ecosystem levels. However, the authors state the need for a more sophisticated understanding of what constitutes scientific innovation success through academic spinoffs. Regarding IC and digitalisation, Yilmaz and Tuzlukaya (2023) recommended investigating the role of digital technologies in the creation and dissemination of knowledge, analysing the relationship between digital transformation and IC in different industries, developing a clear digital transformation strategy, investing in digital technologies, forming strategic partnerships, encouraging employee engagement, and building a data-driven culture. Following this rationale, several key future research topics are connected to the relationship between digital transformation and IC, including the impact of AI and machine learning on IC management, the role of digital platforms in the creation and dissemination of IC, and the role of digital technologies in the protection and management of intellectual property. Regarding IC and sustainability, the study by Mehmood and Hanaysha (2022) stood out, concluding that reducing the information gap between the organisation and its stakeholders would bring green innovation as an effective outcome of its corporate social responsibility initiatives. The same authors suggested checking whether corporate social responsibility positively affects firms’ competitive advantage through the serial mediation effect of green IC and green innovation, public visibility moderates the relationship between corporate social responsibility and green innovation, firm transparency moderates the relationship between corporate social responsibility and green innovation, environmental dynamism moderates the relationship between green innovation and competitive advantage, and environmental regulation moderates the relationship between green innovation and competitive advantage. Paramba et al. (2023) confirmed that research in the field of start-ups should adopt a holistic approach to IC, highlighting the interactions and synergies among its components. Ahlawat et al. (2023) recommended research in organisations related to transport, agriculture, food retailing, sanitary services, communication services, real estate services, education, and postal services. Studies on green IC’s contribution to value creation, the role of green IC, and its dimensions in solving green or social issues, as well as more longitudinal studies, will help us understand the various stages of green IC. Another aspect is determining the effects of green IC on a firm’s value and profitability as well as the impact of training and education in environmental protection on green human capital. Finally, regarding IC and entrepreneurship, Crupi et al. (2020) concluded that the existing literature seems to confirm that studies addressing entrepreneurship should adopt a holistic approach to IC, thus emphasising the existence of interactions and synergies among the different components of IC itself. Furthermore, particular attention should be paid not only to explaining what IC consists of and how it impacts new enterprises’ performance and growth, but also how IC should be managed practically for its potential to be fully exploited. Chaudhary et al. (2023) proposed answering questions related to knowledge resources, capacities, and entrepreneurial orientation; the role played by organisational culture in forming knowledge management in different institutional mechanisms; how culture and digitalisation influence different dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation; how the perception of the organisation’s human capital regarding human resource practices shapes knowledge management practices and entrepreneurial orientation at the firm level; and how employees’ social E. Pedro et al. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 10 (2025) 100664 18 capital influences the development of entrepreneurial orientation. The five key terms for future streams of IC are visually represented in Fig. 6 using a mind map graph, which also highlights the most important related questions that have not yet been addressed in the IC literature. Conclusions An ScR of systematised literature reviews on IC found in the WoS and SCOPUS databases was performed. The search queries were elaborated and refined through brainstorming by the research team. After identifying the documents, the final selection contained 78 studies that were analysed considering the five research questions. Conclusions can be drawn from three perspectives: contributions, implications, and limitations and future research. Contributions This study underscores the strategic importance of IC across its various dimensions and components, emphasising the need for comprehensive frameworks, proper measurement methods, and integrated approaches to leverage IC, including more sophisticated and emerging topics linked to innovation, sustainability, digitalisation, knowledge, and entrepreneurship. From the fourth stage, research on IC gained a new lease of life and extended beyond the borders of organisations to include the ecosystems of cities, regions, and countries. This gave rise to the fifth stage, which is crucial for consolidating IC (see e.g. Dumay et al., 2018) as a unified, relevant theory for the academic community, policymakers, and practitioners. The results demonstrated that the fifth stage began in 2018. It is at this stage that future studies should focus their analysis so that researchers can understand IC as a crucial element of an ecosystem comprising a vast number of organisations, as stated by Dumay et al. (2018). Moreover, these authors state that research in the area of IC should incorporate a broader social and environmental purpose, going beyond the mere management of organisations; otherwise, it runs the risk of dying. As concluded by Dumay et al. (2020), IC’s great potential in the fifth stage is understanding how various types of capital, including human, social, relational, cultural, and natural capital, interact when combined with knowledge, experience, and intellectual ownership so that IC can be used to generate economic, environmental, social, and utilitarian value. ScR also reveals contradictions and gaps in the context of the proposed research areas and the current state of knowledge in the field of IC studies. The following issues require further investigation. (i) There is a need for research on IC disclosure, particularly considering the current lack of deep understanding of IC interdependencies. Further research on IC reporting and disclosure, focusing on enhancing the transparency and structure of IC information, is needed. However, the interdependencies between different IC categories remain poorly understood. This conflict suggests that the call for improved IC disclosure may be premature if fundamental relationships within IC categories remain unclear. This may lead to an information disclosure procedure that lacks substance. (ii) ScR investigates the relationships between IC and a range of factors including knowledge management, financial Fig. 6. Mind map graph about the five main words and related main questions for future streams of IC. Source: Own elaboration. E. Pedro et al. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 10 (2025) 100664 19 performance, market value, scientific production, and innovation. However, the interdependencies among IC categories are poorly understood, suggesting that the scope of research may be overextended without establishing a solid foundation for understanding the interrelationships among IC categories. (iii) Innovation is a key focus; yet, there is a lack of clarity regarding the role of IC in innovation. The ScR emphasises the study of IC in the context of innovation and its impact on scientific production. However, if the fundamental relationships within IC categories are not fully understood, it becomes more challenging to isolate and analyse the specific role of IC in innovation owing to a lack of data representing IC components. This results in a potential conflict between the emphasis on innovation as a key research area and the lack of clarity regarding IC’s foundational dynamics. The study of IC in innovation, as viewed through the lens of the systems theory, focuses on two important issues: First, it identifies the hidden mechanisms through which IC supports companies’ dynamic innovation capabilities, particularly technology firms. Second, it examines how institutional context regulates the relationship between IC and innovation capabilities. In line with Ozhiganov et al. (2021), the practical goal of the systems theory is to determine the conditions for effectively utilising both tangible and intangible (intellectual) resources across various levels—organisation, industry, city, region, and national economy—to optimise IC’s role in innovation. Implications The implications of this ScR are especially valid for the academic community, in that it provides avenues for future research, including (i) approaches more focused on the fifth stage of IC; (ii) more empirical studies, above all concerning RIC and NIC; including emerging topics common to almost all the clusters, such as innovation, social and environmental impacts, and the role of green IC; (iii) the importance of IC related to higher education, especially in relation to the third mission; (iv) the importance of IC in the energy sector and the lack of studies in this area; the importance of transformation and digital technologies for IC; and (v) the importance of human capital, which is crucial in all stages of IC and does not only concern skills, capabilities, knowledge and attitudes in organisations. Human capital drives innovation, entrepreneurship, knowledge transfer, and sustainable development and is crucial for all ecosystems linked to cities, regions, and countries, positioning IC as the main asset in an ecosystem of knowledge. Some implications for the IC theory may also be deduced using the mind map graph’s content on the five keywords and associated key questions as a guide: (i) The role of intangible assets in supporting knowledge-based innovation through academic spinoffs highlights the importance of leveraging IC in research institutions and universities to promote the successful transfer and commercialisation of scientific knowledge. (ii) Factors such as public visibility, firm transparency, environmental dynamism, and regulation significantly influence how green IC translates into sustainable competitive advantage. This finding implies that the contextual factors surrounding green IC must be better understood to implement effective sustainability strategies. (iii) The emphasis on the relationships between knowledge management and IC, entrepreneurial intention, entrepreneurial orientation, and entrepreneurial and innovative performance suggests that strategic knowledge utilisation is critical to achieving organisational goals. (iv) Human and social capital are pivotal in shaping entrepreneurial intention, entrepreneurial orientation, and knowledge management practices, suggesting that firms should invest in developing this type of asset to support innovation and sustainable growth. (v) Digital technologies are crucial for managing and disseminating IC, particularly in rapidly changing industries. Developing digital transformation strategies and investing in appropriate technologies are necessary steps to facilitate the integration of IC in digital contexts without neglecting the increasing capability of AI. Limitations and future research Regarding the limitations of this ScR, we only used two databases. However, these were the most commonly used. This justification was supported by the ScR itself; of the 78 documents analysed, 20 used both databases, 19 used SCOPUS, and 11 used WOS. These 78 articles systematically reviewed around 33,000 publications altogether, which, although repeated by different authors, were addressed from different angles, leading to the results of this ScR being much more wide-ranging. Second, we only included systematic literature reviews and database searches. It is believed that all articles included in the ScR were not biased and included relevant studies in the area, while recognising that there may be relevant studies by less well-known authors. Third, the interpretation of the topics and clusters presented here was based on the interconnection of the analyses performed by the coauthors. Nevertheless, our procedures attempted to reduce the bias arising from the selection of results and respective analyses, resorting to conciliation among all co-authors to resolve some less obvious and convergent situations. We did not consult specialists on subjects who could have exercised control and provided alternative research topics, as indicated in Arksey and O’Malley (2005). However, these authors stated that this phase may or may not be included in an ScR, depending on the researcher’s level of knowledge and involvement in the topic. Considering that all those involved had already published relevant studies in the area of IC, we decided not to include this phase. Fourth, only papers were used, rather than other document types, such as books, book chapters, and doctorate theses, which usually include a thorough literature assessment of the topic. This type of publication was not available for consultation, which made a thorough search challenging. However, the reviewed publications are considered to be an excellent corpus providing a thorough summary of the current literature on IC. Despite offering a focused overview of the IC literature, the previously identified limitations imply that ScR may lack the diversity and breadth of a more comprehensive incorporation of databases, additional publications (such as policy reports or ‘grey’ literature), and expert opinions. Moreover, while scoping reviews aim at breadth, they may sacrifice the depth of analysis compared to more focused systematic reviews. Readers should be mindful of these limitations when interpreting the results, as they may be more reflective of mainstream research found in the databases and publishing types used. Suggested for future research is an integrative literature review of the five stages of developing IC through mapping based on a metaanalysis of components, units of analysis, methods, variables, and signs of the relationships tested in studies on IC regarding evolution in the organisational, regional, and national dimensions. Before moving on to more complex and emerging research topics, a more structured approach is required to address the contradictions and gaps previously mentioned. This approach should focus on a new integrative IC theory and should be grounded in foundational research to establish a clear understanding of IC interdependencies. It should also discuss the opportunities and challenges presented by digital transformation for managing IC, as well as emerging technologies such as big data and generative AI. E. Pedro et al. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 10 (2025) 100664 20 CRediT authorship contribution statement Eug´ enia Pedro: Writing – original draft, Visualization, Validation, Supervision, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization. Jo˜ ao Leit˜ ao: Validation, Supervision, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization. Helena Alves: Validation, Supervision, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization. Acknowledgments The authors gratefully acknowledge funding received from NECE – Research Center for Business Sciences and FCT - Fundaç˜ ao para a Ciˆ encia e a Tecnologia, Grant: UIDB/04630/2020, DOI:10.54499/UIDP/04630/ 2020; and Eug´ enia Pedro also gratefully acknowledge funding received from FCT - Fundaç˜ ao para a Ciˆ encia e a Technologia and Universidade da Beira Interior, CEECINST/00016/2021/CP2828/CT0005, CEEC Institutional 2021, DOI: 10.54499/CEECINST/00016/2021/CP2828/ CT0005. The authors acknowledge the valuable comments and suggestions provided by the editors and reviewers, which have improved the clarity, focus, contribution, and scientific soundness of the current study. Supplementary materials Supplementary material associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.jik.2025.100664. References Ahlawat, D., Sharma, P., & Kumar, S. (2023). A systematic literature review of current understanding and future scope on green intellectual capital. Intangible Capital, 19 (2), 165. https://doi.org/10.3926/ic.2191 Alan, H., & K¨ oker, A. R. (2021). Structural social capital studies in management and organization literature: A bibliometric network study. Central European Management Journal, 29(4), 2–31. https://doi.org/10.7206/cemj.2658-0845.58 Albertini, E., & Berger-Remy, F. (2019). Intellectual capital and financial performance: A meta-analysis and research agenda. Management (France), 22(2), 216–249. https:// www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85066322223&partnerID=40&md 5=928c7d47f40d3f239bc134d7e45d7258. Ali, M. A., Hussin, N., Haddad, H., Al-Araj, R., & Abed, I. A. (2021). Intellectual capital and innovation performance: Systematic literature review. Risks, 9(9). https://doi. org/10.3390/risks9090170 Allee, V. (1997). The Knowledge Evolution: Expanding Organizational Intelligence. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Alvino, F., Di Vaio, A., Hassan, R., & Palladino, R. (2021). Intellectual capital and sustainable development: A systematic literature review. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 22(1), 76–94. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-11-2019-0259 Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology: Theory and Practice, 8(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616 Armstrong, R., Hall, B. J., Doyle, J., & Waters, E. (2011). Scoping the scope’ of a Cochrane review. In Journal of public health, 33 pp. 147–150). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdr015 Baima, G., Forliano, C., Santoro, G., & Vrontis, D. (2021). Intellectual capital and business model: A systematic literature review to explore their linkages. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 22(3), 653–679. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-02-2020-0055 Bamel, U., Pereira, V., Del Giudice, M., & Temouri, Y. (2022). The extent and impact of intellectual capital research: A two decade analysis. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 23 (2), 375–400. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-05-2020-0142 Bellucci, M., Marzi, G., Orlando, B., & Ciampi, F. (2021). Journal of Intellectual Capital: A review of emerging themes and future trends. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 22(4), 744–767. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-10-2019-0239 Bisogno, M., Dumay, J., Manes Rossi, F., & Tartaglia Polcini, P. (2018). Identifying future directions for IC research in education: A literature review. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 19(1), 10–33. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-10-2017-0133 Borin, E., & Donato, F. (2015). Unlocking the potential of IC in Italian cultural ecosystems. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 16(2), 285–304. https://doi.org/10.1108/ JIC-12-2014-0131 Bryl, L. (2020). Intangible assets in the process of internationalization. International Journal of Management and Economics, 56(1), 63–78. https://doi.org/10.2478/ijme2020-0004 Bryl, L., & Fijalkowska, J. (2020). How does intellectual capital disclosure affect the cost of capital? Conclusions from two decades of research. Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 18(1), 29–55. https://doi.org/10.34190/EJKM.18.01.003 Buenechea-Elberdin, M. (2017). Structured literature review about intellectual capital and innovation. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 18(2), 262–285. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/JIC-07-2016-0069 Cabezas, H., Pawlowski, C. W., Mayer, A. L., & Hoagland, N. T. (2005). Sustainable systems theory: Ecological and other aspects. Journal of Cleaner Production, 13(5), 455–467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2003.09.011. SPEC. ISS. Castilla-Polo, F., & Gallardo-V´ azquez, D. (2016). The main topics of research on disclosures of intangible assets: A critical review. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 29(2), 323–356. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-11-20141864 Castilla-Polo, F., & Ruiz-Rodríguez, C. (2017). Content analysis within intangible assets disclosure: A structured literature review. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 18(3), 506–543. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-11-2016-0123 C´ ezanne, C., Krafft, J., & Saglietto, L. (2019). A survey of the literature on human capitalintensive firms. Journal of Economic Surveys, 33(2), 458–480. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/joes.12285 Chaudhary, S., Dhir, A., Farronato, N., Nicotra, M., & Pironti, M. (2023). Nexus between entrepreneurial orientation and intellectual capital. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 24 (1), 70–114. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-09-2021-0256 Civitillo, R., Festa, G., Priporas, C.-V., & Rossi, M. (2022). Intellectual capital in nonprofit organizations: A focus on social capital as a marketing enabler. International Marketing Review, 39(5), 1052–1068. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-01-2021-0029 Cosa, M., Pedro, E., & Urban, B. (2023). How to assess the intellectual capital of firms in uncertain times: A systematic literature review and a proposed model for practical adoption. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 25(7), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC05-2023-0096 Crook, T. R., Todd, S. Y., Combs, J. G., Woehr, D. J., & Ketchen, D. J. (2011). Does human capital matter? A meta-analysis of the relationship between human capital and firm performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(3), 443–456. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/a0022147 Crupi, A., Cesaroni, F., & Di Minin, A. (2020). Understanding the impact of intellectual capital on entrepreneurship: A literature review. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 22(3), 528–559. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-02-2020-0054 Cuozzo, B., Dumay, J., Palmaccio, M., & Lombardi, R. (2017). Intellectual capital disclosure: A structured literature review. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 18(1), 9–28. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-10-2016-0104 Dabi´ c, M., Vlaˇ ci´ c, B., Scuotto, V., & Warkentin, M. (2020). Two decades of the journal of intellectual capital: A bibliometric overview and an agenda for future research. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 22(3), 458–477. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-022020-0052 Daraio, C., Di Leo, S., Iazzolino, G., & Laise, D. (2023). DEA, balanced scorecard and intellectual capital including the gender dimension: A comprehensive list of indicators. International Transactions in Operational Research, 30(6), 2972–3012. https://doi.org/10.1111/itor.13293 Daudt, H. M. L., Van Mossel, C., & Scott, S. J. (2013). Enhancing the scoping study methodology: A large, inter-professional team’s experience with Arksey and O’Malley’s framework. In BMC medical research methodology, 13. https://doi.org/ 10.1186/1471-2288-13-48 De Almeida, L., Salles, M., & Neto, J. (2022). The influence of intellectual capital on value creation in the life cycle: A bibliometric study. Popov and vlasov. Xu and Liu. https://www.revistasg.uff.br/sg/article/download/1771/1570?inline=1. de Santis, F., & Giuliani, M. (2013). A look on the other side: Investigating intellectual liabilities. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 14(2), 212–226. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 14691931311323850 De Santis, F., & Presti, C. (2018). The relationship between intellectual capital and big data: A review. Meditari Accountancy Research, 26(3), 361–380. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/MEDAR-10-2017-0222 Demartini, M. C., & Beretta, V. (2020). Intellectual capital and SMEs’ performance: A structured literature review. Journal of Small Business Management, 58(2), 288–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472778.2019.1659680 Demartini, M. C., & Beretta, V. (2022). Intellectual capital in SMEs: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Learning and Intellectual Capital, 19(1), 5–29. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJLIC.2021.10036643 Dhamija, P. (2020). Intellectual capital and operational excellence: An influential assessment. International Journal of Mathematical, Engineering and Management Sciences, 5(6), 1062–1076. https://doi.org/10.33889/IJMEMS.2020.5.6.081 Dumay, J. (2013). The third stage of IC: Towards a new IC future and beyond. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 14(1), 5–9. https://doi.org/10.1108/14691931311288986 Dumay, J. (2016). A critical reflection on the future of intellectual capital: From reporting to disclosure. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 17(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/JIC-08-2015-0072 Dumay, J., & Garanina, T. (2013). Intellectual capital research: A critical examination of the third stage. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 14(1), 10–25. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 14691931311288995 Dumay, J., & Guthrie, J. (2017). Involuntary disclosure of intellectual capital: Is it relevant? Journal of Intellectual Capital, 18(1), 29–44. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC10-2016-0102 Dumay, J., Guthrie, J., & Puntillo, P. (2015). IC and public sector: A structured literature review. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 16(2), 267–284. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC02-2015-0014 Dumay, J., Guthrie, J., & Rooney, J. (2018). The critical path of intellectual capital. In J. Guthrie, J. Dumay, F. Ricceri, & C. Nielsen (Eds.), Routledge companion to intellectual capital: Frontiers of research, practice and knowledge (pp. 21–39). Routledge. E. Pedro et al. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 10 (2025) 100664 21 Dumay, J., Guthrie, J., & Rooney, J. (2020). Being critical about intellectual capital accounting in 2020: An overview. In Critical perspectives on accounting, 70. Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2020.102185 Edvinsson, L., & Malone, M. S. (1997). Intellectual Capital: Realizing Your Company’s True Value By Finding Its Hidden Brainpower. New York, NY: Harper Business. Eyal, G., & Buchholz, L. (2010). From the sociology of intellectuals to the sociology of interventions. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 117–137. https://doi.org/10.1146/ annurev.soc.012809.102625 Faraji, O., Asiaei, K., Rezaee, Z., Bontis, N., & Dolatzarei, E. (2022). Mapping the conceptual structure of intellectual capital research: A co-word analysis. Journal of Innovation and Knowledge, 7(3). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2022.100202 Ferenhof, H. A., Durst, S., Bialecki, M. Z., & Selig, P. M. (2015). Intellectual capital dimensions: State of the art in 2014. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 16(1), 58–100. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-02-2014-0021 Ferreira, J. J. M., Fernandes, C., & Veiga, P. (2021). Multilevel approaches to advancing the measurement of intellectual capital research field–what can we learn from the literature? Journal of Intellectual Capital, 22(6), 971–999. https://doi.org/10.1108/ JIC-07-2020-0221 Gallego, C., Mejía, G. M., & Calder´ on, G. (2020). Strategic design: Origins and contributions to intellectual capital in organizations. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 21 (6), 873–891. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-10-2019-0234 Garanina, T., Hussinki, H., & Dumay, J. (2021). Accounting for intangibles and intellectual capital: A literature review from 2000 to 2020. Accounting and Finance, 61(4), 5111–5140. https://doi.org/10.1111/acfi.12751 Garcia-Perez, A., Ghio, A., Occhipinti, Z., & Verona, R. (2020). Knowledge management and intellectual capital in knowledge-based organisations: A review and theoretical perspectives. Journal of Knowledge Management, 24(7), 1719–1754. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/JKM-12-2019-0703 Goswami, A. K., & Agrawal, R. K. (2020). Building intellectual structure of knowledge sharing. VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, 50(1), 136–162. https://doi.org/10.1108/VJIKMS-03-2019-0036 Gough, D., Thomas, J., & Oliver, S. (2012). Clarifying differences between review designs and methods. Systematic Reviews, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-1-28 Gravili, G., Manta, F., Cristofaro, C. L., Reina, R., & Toma, P. (2021). Value that matters: Intellectual capital and big data to assess performance in healthcare. An empirical analysis on the European context. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 22(2), 260–289. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-02-2020-0067 Grimaldi, M., Corvello, V., De Mauro, A., & Scarmozzino, E. (2017). A systematic literature review on intangible assets and open innovation. Knowledge Management Research and Practice, 15(1), 90–100. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41275-016-0041-7 Guthrie, J., Ricceri, F., & Dumay, J. (2012). Reflections and projections: A decade of intellectual capital accounting research. British Accounting Review, 44(2), 68–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2012.03.004 Gutierrez-Bucheli, L., Reid, A., & Kidman, G. (2022). Scoping reviews: Their development and application in environmental and sustainable education research. In Environmental education research, 28 pp. 645–673). Routledge. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/13504622.2022.2047896 Harlen, W., & Deakin Crick, R. (2004). Opportunities and challenges of using systematic reviews of research for evidence-based policy in education. Evaluation & Research in Education, 18(1–2), 54–71. Harris, L. (2000). A Theory of Intellectual Capital. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 2(1), 22–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/152342230000200104 Inkinen, H. (2015). Review of empirical research on intellectual capital and firm performance. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 16(3), 518–565. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/JIC-01-2015-0002 Iskandar, Y., Joeliaty, Kaltum, U., & Hilmiana. (2021). The relationship between intellectual capital and performance of social enterprises: A literature review. In Academic journal of interdisciplinary studies, 10 pp. 309–330). Richtmann Publishing Ltd. https://doi.org/10.36941/ajis-2021-0141 Kivist¨ o, J., & Zalyevska, I. (2016). Agency theory as a framework for higher education governance. In The Palgrave International Handbook of Higher Education Policy and Governance (pp. 132–151). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-45617-5 Labra, R., & S´ anchez, M. P. (2013). National intellectual capital assessment models: A literature review. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 14(4), 582–607. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/JIC-11-2012-0100 Labra, R., & S´ anchez, M. P. (2017). Intellectual capital of nations: A comparative analysis of assessment models. Knowledge Management Research and Practice, 15(2), 169–183. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41275-016-0044-4 Leit˜ ao, J., Alves, H., Krueger, N., & Park, J. (2018). Entrepreneurial, Innovative and Sustainable Ecosystems - Best Practices and Implications for Quality of Life (Series: Ap). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71014-3 Leit˜ ao, J., Pereira, D., Gonçalves, ˆ A., & Oliveira, T. (2023). Digitalizing the pillars of Hybrid Civic Universities: A bibliometric analysis and new taxonomy proposal. In Journal of open innovation: Technology, market, and complexity, 9. Elsevier B.V.. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joitmc.2023.100026 Lerro, A., & Carlucci, D. (2007). Intellectual capital and regions: Origins, theoretical foundations and implications for decision-makers. International Journal of Learning and Intellectual Capital, 4(4), 357–376. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJLIC.2007.016333 Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., & O’Brien, K.K. (2010). Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. http://www.cihr-irsc.ca. Lin, C. Y. Y., & Edvinsson, L. (2020). Reflections on JIC’s twenty-year history and suggestions for future IC research. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 22(3), 439–457. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-03-2020-0082 Littell, J. H., Corcoran, J., & Pillay, V. (2008). Systematic reviews and meta-analysis. Oxford University Press. Marr, B., & Moustaghfir, K. (2005). Defining intellectual capital: A three-dimensional approach. Management Decision, 43(9), 1114–1128. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 00251740510626227 Martín-de Castro, G., Díez-Vial, I., & Delgado-Verde, M (2019). Intellectual capital and the firm: Evolution and research trends. In Journal of intellectual capital, 20 pp. 555–580). Emerald Group Holdings Ltd.. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-12-20180221 Massaro, M., Dumay, J., Garlatti, A., & Dal Mas, F. (2018). Practitioners’ views on intellectual capital and sustainability: From a performance-based to a worth-based perspective. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 19(2), 367–386. https://doi.org/10.1108/ JIC-02-2017-0033 Massaro, M., Dumay, J. C., & Guthrie, J. (2016). On the shoulders of giants: Undertaking a structured literature review in accounting. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 29(5), 767–801. https://doi.org/10.1002/elan Matthies, B. (2014). Process capital: A synthesis of research and future prospects. Knowledge and Process Management, 21(2), 91–102. https://doi.org/10.1002/ kpm.1433 Mays, N., Roberts, E., & Popay, J. (2001). Synthesising research evidence. In N. Fulop, P. Allen, A. Clarke, & N. Black (Eds.), Studying the organisation and delivery of health services: Research methods (pp. 188–220). Routledge. McMahan, P., & McFarland, D. A. (2021). Creative destruction: The structural consequences of scientific curation. American Sociological Review, 86(2), 341–376. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122421996323 Mehmood, K. K., & Hanaysha, J. R. (2022). Impact of corporate social responsibility, green intellectual capital, and green innovation on competitive advantage: Building contingency model. International Journal of Human Capital and Information Technology Professionals, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.4018/IJHCITP.293232 Mokhlis, C. E., Diop, Y., & Boualou, W. (2024). Does the deployment of the ISO 9001 standard have an effect on intellectual capital? Intangible Capital, 20(2), 425–445. https://doi.org/10.3926/IC.2726 Munn, Z., Peters, M. D. J., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C., McArthur, A., & Aromataris, E. (2018). Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x Mustapha, R., & Abdullah, A. (2004). Malaysia Transitions Toward a Knowledge-Based Economy. The Journal of Technology Studies, 30(3), 51–61. https://doi.org/ 10.21061/jots.v30i3.a.8 Nejjari, Z., & Aamoum, H. (2022). A meta-analysis of the relationship between intellectual capital and innovation in businesses. International Journal of Learning and Intellectual Capital, 19(5), 490–522. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJLIC.2022.125380 Orjala, H. (2021). Misled by data? Review of data sources in national intellectual capital research. Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 19(1), 43–53. https://doi.org/ 10.34190/ejkm.19.1.2243 Ozhiganov, E. N., Nazyuta, S. V., Chursin, A. A., & Ostrovskaya, A. A. (2021). Approaches to the creation of a systemic integrated theory of intellectual capital management. Journal of Contemporary Issues in Business and Government, 27(02). https://doi.org/ 10.47750/cibg.2021.27.02.177 Paoloni, M., Coluccia, D., Fontana, S., & Solimene, S. (2020). Knowledge management, intellectual capital and entrepreneurship: A structured literature review. Journal of Knowledge Management, 24(8), 1797–1818. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-01-20200052 Paoloni, N., Mattei, G., Dello Strologo, A., & Celli, M. (2020). The present and future of intellectual capital in the healthcare sector: A systematic literature review. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 21(3), 357–379. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-10-2019-0237 Paoloni, P., Modaffari, G., & Mattei, G. (2021). Knowledge resources in the university context: An overview of the literature. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 22(4), 703–724. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-01-2020-0010 Paoloni, P., Modaffari, G., Ricci, F., & Della Corte, G. (2023). Intellectual capital between measurement and reporting: A structured literature review. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 24(1), 115–176. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-07-2021-0195 Paramba, J. N., Salamzadeh, A., Karuthedath, S., & Rahman, M. M. (2023). Intellectual capital and sustainable start-up performance: A bibliometric analysis. Heritage and Sustainable Development, 5(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.37868/hsd.v5i1.119 Park, A., Maine, E., Fini, R., Rasmussen, E., Di Minin, A., Dooley, L., Mortara, L., Lubik, S., & Zhou, Y. (2023). Science-based innovation via university spin-offs: The influence of intangible assets. R & D Management. https://doi.org/10.1111/ radm.12646 Pedro, E., Leit˜ ao, J., & Alves, H. (2018a). Back to the future of intellectual capital research: A systematic literature review. Management Decision, 56(11), 2502–2583. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-08-2017-0807 Pedro, E., Leit˜ ao, J., & Alves, H. (2018b). Intellectual capital and performance: Taxonomy of components and multi-dimensional analysis axes. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 19(2), 407–452. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-11-2016-0118 Pereira, D., Leit˜ ao, J., Oliveira, T., & Peirone, D. (2023). Proposing a holistic research framework for university strategic alliances in sustainable entrepreneurship. In Heliyon, 9. Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e16087 Pham, M. T., Raji´ c, A., Greig, J. D., Sargeant, J. M., Papadopoulos, A., & McEwen, S. A. (2014). A scoping review of scoping reviews: Advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Research Synthesis Methods, 5(4), 371–385. https://doi. org/10.1002/jrsm.1123 Pigola, A., De Santi, P. V, da Costa, P. R., & Storopoli, J. (2021). Intellectual capital on performance: A meta-analysis study enhancing a new perspective of the components. Journal of Intellectual Capital. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-01-2021-0025 Quintero-Quintero, W., Blanco-Ariza, A. B., & Garz´ on-Castrill´ on, M. A. (2021). Intellectual capital: A review and bibliometric analysis. Publications, 9(4). https:// doi.org/10.3390/publications9040046 E. Pedro et al. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 10 (2025) 100664 22 Rieg, R., & Vanini, U. (2023). Value relevance of voluntary intellectual capital disclosure: A meta-analysis. Review of Managerial Science, 17(7), 2587–2631. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11846-023-00630-3 Santosa, S., Ismail, T., Hanifah, I. A., & Muchlish, M. (2023). Intellectual capital measurement revisited: Bibliometric analysis of value-added intellectual coefficient. Quality - Access to Success, 24(194), 333–344. https://doi.org/10.47750/QAS/ 24.194.37 Secundo, G., Del Vecchio, P., Dumay, J., & Passiante, G. (2017). Intellectual capital in the age of Big Data: Establishing a research agenda. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 18(2), 242–261. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-10-2016-0097 Secundo, G., Ndou, V., Vecchio, P. D., & De Pascale, G. (2020). Sustainable development, intellectual capital and technology policies: A structured literature review and future research agenda. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 153. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.techfore.2020.119917 Shakina, E. A., Molodchik, M. A., & Parshakov, P. A. (2020). Intangible-driven performance: Two decades searching for the philosopher’s stone. Rossiiskii Zhurnal Menedzhmenta-Russian Management Journal, 18(3), 433–456. https://doi.org/ 10.21638/spbu18.2020.307 Silva Júnior, C. R., Rigo, P. D., Neu, D. T., Machado, F. A., Gerhardt, V. J., & Siluk, J. C. M. (2023). Analyzing intangible assets’ impact on electricity sector companies through balanced scorecard and life cycle stages. Electricity Journal, 36 (7). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tej.2023.107317 Slyvkanyˇ c, N., & Glova, J. (2023). Bibliometric study of the conceptual approach of intellectual capital. TEM Journal, 12(4), 2564–2572. https://doi.org/10.18421/ TEM124-68 Stewart, T. A. (1997). Intellectual Capital: The New Wealth of Organizations. In Currency Doubleday. New York: Currency Doubleday. Suri, H. (2013). Epistemological pluralism in research synthesis methods. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 26(7), 889–911. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09518398.2012.691565 Suri, H., & Hattie, J. A. (2013). Meta-analysis and research synthesis in education. Oxford Bibliographies Online. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:59665471. Sveiby, K. E. (1997). The New Organizational Wealth: Managing & Measuring KnowledgeBased Assets. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O’Brien, K., Colquhoun, H., Kastner, M., Levac, D., Ng, C., Sharpe, J. P., Wilson, K., Kenny, M., Warren, R., Wilson, C., Stelfox, H. T., & Straus, S. E. (2016). A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. In BMC medical research methodology, 16. BioMed Central Ltd. https://doi. org/10.1186/s12874-016-0116-4 Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O’Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M. D. J., Horsley, T., Weeks, L., Hempel, S., Akl, E. A., Chang, C., McGowan, J., Stewart, L., Hartling, L., Aldcroft, A., Wilson, M. G., Garritty, C., Lewin, S., Godfrey, C. M., MacDonald, M. T., Langlois, E. V., Soares-Weiser, K., Moriarty, J., Clifford, T., Tunçalp, ¨ O., & Straus, S. E. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of internal medicine, 169, 467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850. American College of Physicians. Tsakalerou, M. (2015). A meta-study of intellectual capital and firm performance: When the whole is more than the sum of its parts. International Journal of Learning and Intellectual Capital, 12(3), 287–299. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJLIC.2015.070168 Ujwary-Gil, A. (2017). The business model and intellectual capital in the value creation of firms: A literature review. Baltic Journal of Management, 12(3), 368–386. https:// doi.org/10.1108/BJM-10-2016-0224 Van Criekingen, K., Bloch, C., & Eklund, C. (2022). Measuring intangible assets-A review of the state of the art. Journal of Economic Surveys, 36(5), 1539–1558. https://doi. org/10.1111/joes.12475 van Vught, F., Bartelse, J., Bohmert, D., File, J., Gaethgens, C., Hansen, S., … van de Wende, M. (2008). Mapping Diversity: Developing a European Classification of Higher Education Institutions. In European Commission (pp. 1–115). CHEPS (Center for Higher Education Policy Studies. Vanini, U., & Rieg, R. (2019). Effects of voluntary intellectual capital disclosure for disclosing firms: A structured literature review. Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 20(3), 349–364. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAAR-08-2018-0116 Vaz, C. R., Rocha, P. R. Z., Maldonado, M. U., Selig, P. M., & Rocha, J. P. Z. (2014). Bibliometric analysis of the scientific production of the concept of intellectual capital (1980-2012). Espacios, 35(5). https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri? eid=2-s2.0-84921316861&partnerID=40&md5=6a303f08c6f435762f7acc81ef016 988. Verbano, C., & Crema, M. (2013). Measuring IC following a semi-qualitative approach: An integrated framework. Intangible Capital, 9(3), 539–558. https://doi.org/ 10.3926/ic.427 Westphaln, K. K., Regoeczi, W., Masotya, M., Vazquez-Westphaln, B., Lounsbury, K., McDavid, L., Lee, H. N., Johnson, J., Ronis, S., Herbert, J., Cross, T., & Walsh, W. (2021). From Arksey and O’Malley and Beyond: Customizations to enhance a teambased, mixed approach to scoping review methodology. MethodsX, 8, 1–14. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2020.104828 Wudhikarn, R., Chakpitak, N., & Neubert, G. (2018). A literature review on performance measures of logistics management: An intellectual capital perspective. International Journal of Production Research, 56(13), 4490–4520. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 00207543.2018.1431414 Yawson, R. M., & Paros, A. K. B. (2023). Systems perspective of the use of the balanced scorecard for organization development and change. SAGE Open, 13(4). https://doi. org/10.1177/21582440231218064 Yilmaz, A. A., & Tuzlukaya, S. E. (2023). The relation between intellectual capital and digital transformation: A bibliometric analysis. International Journal of Innovation Science. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJIS-08-2022-0145 Zula, K. J., & Chermack, T. J. (2007). Integrative literature reviews: Human capital planning: A review of literature and implications for human resource development. Human Resource Development Review, 6(3), 245–262. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1534484307303762 E. Pedro et al. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 10 (2025) 100664 23