Search results

This study examines the relationship between board capital, including human and social capital, and corporate innovation. We propose two hypotheses: that a board with a higher level of human and social capital, respectively, is expected to have a higher level of innovation. To test these hypotheses, we use data from different sources, including SEC EDGARD-10k, Noah Stoffman, and S&P 500 Capital IQ for US public firms from all industries from 2000 to 2018. Four different innovation measurements are used to proxy for innovation: R&D, patents, citations, and number of new products. We use directors' level of education and industry experience to proxy for board human capital. The directors' social networks and interlocking ties are used to proxy for board social capital. We use fixed effect regressions to test the hypotheses and two-stage least square (2SLS) regressions to address endogeneity issues. We find that boards with higher levels of human capital are highly associated with corporate innovation in terms of citations. The findings imply that firms should hire directors with higher education and industry experience if they wish to increase their innovation.

This chapter argues that modern societies are changing in ways that disrupt the complementarity between social structure and character structure. One source of this divergence occurs because, on the one hand, there exists a “neoliberal” character structure that is oriented toward the accumulation of human capital and holds that such accumulation and hard work will allow one to achieve the “American Dream.” On the other hand, the deep embeddedness of this character structure may in fact deepen the possibility of structural crisis, as developments in automation and ongoing transformations of labor continuously shift the economic structure and many feel they are employed in meaningless “soul crushing” jobs. This diagnosis prompts the question: is the accumulation of human capital futile? In other words, can there exist an abundance of jobs that simultaneously pay enough to provide a middle-class lifestyle and be both socially respected by most members of society while also providing subjective meaning for the individual – without accruing high social costs? Through reflections upon my own biography growing up in East Tennessee, this chapter utilizes the framework of Planetary Sociology to encourage sociologists to rethink the category of “human capital” and recognize the divergence of social structure and character structure to be a serious problem with planetary implications. Only by critical examination of the sociohistoric context from a planetary perspective can these challenges be constructively evaluated and reckoned with.

This chapter makes a case for extending institutional preservation strategies to the entire landscape of knowledge capital. First, the authors define the three primary types of capital – physical, financial, and knowledge. Knowledge capital is further broken down into three categories – human, structural, and relational. The individual types of knowledge capital are defined, along with their variant economic properties and behaviors. The challenges these variations present for preservation are discussed. The authors also highlight these assets’ significant opportunities for curating new knowledge. Each type of knowledge capital is described, along with the preservation challenges and the curation opportunities.

Purpose: This study examines the key role of diversity management in supporting intellectual capital in organisations. Intellectual capital, which includes the knowledge, skills and innovative potential of employees, is recognised as a valuable resource that drives organisational success. By embracing diversity and managing it effectively, organisations can unleash the full potential of their intellectual capital and achieve a lot of benefits.

Methodology: The study is based on primary data. The research method used to achieve the objective and answer the research questions is a critical analysis of the literature on the subject, as well as an analysis of the qualitative research conducted by the author on the topic of building intellectual capital of enterprises in Poland conducted in 2019. The study used a dataset of 1,067 enterprises operating in Poland (with at least 10 employees).

Findings: It should be noted that this study underscores the crucial role of diversity management in enhancing intellectual capital within organisations. By embracing diversity and fostering an inclusive environment, organisations can tap into collective intelligence, creativity, and problem-solving capabilities of a diverse workforce. The benefits extend beyond organisational performance, encompassing innovation, employee engagement, and customer satisfaction.

Significance: The study highlights that it is imperative for organisations to implement effective diversity management strategies and continuously evaluate their progress to unlock the full potential of their intellectual capital and drive sustainable success in a rapidly evolving global landscape.

Chapter 4 addresses the importance of internal knowledge cultures. It provides a deeper dive into how internal knowledge cultures can contribute to a company’s performance. The authors explain how knowledge culture shapes practical knowledge processes and fosters intellectual capital. The authors also provide insights into a critical knowledge paradox and discuss the interplay of knowledge paradoxes and cultural collisions. The chapter is supported by practical use cases that illustrate the points in the chapter.

The recent period, also called the “era of algorithms”, has brought remarkable transformations both in personal life and in the way of doing business. Developing and implementing digital technologies depend on the availability of human capital, a resource that is increasingly difficult to find. Countries are in competition for this resource, and attracting talent has become a goal often difficult to achieve. In this context, the current chapter seeks to evaluate human capital contribution to the digital competitiveness of the EU countries and to describe the moderating role of digitization in the development of human capital through migration management. Investigating the digital competitiveness of the EU countries, we demonstrated that the most important driver of the major differences between these countries is human capital. In this context, migration becomes both an opportunity and a threat, and its digital management is of tremendous importance.