Search results

Firm-specific human capital (FSHC) has been an integral part of the vocabulary in the strategy field. Many scholars argue that FSHC inhibits employee mobility and drives employee retention at a discount, value appropriation, and firms' competitive advantage. FSHC also plays a central role in the resource-based view of the firm. In recent years, however, a significant debate has emerged on the validity and usefulness of the construct. The purpose of the chapter is to revisit this debate and discuss both challenges and opportunities related to FSHC. In a form of conversation, we take aim at FSHC from different angles and discuss its role as a mobility friction, in value appropriation of established firms, in the context of transitions between paid employment and entrepreneurship, and in the views of practitioners. While we agree that our understanding of the concept of FSHC must evolve, we continue to see its value in our theoretical toolbox.

Economic theory posits that production factors that are both difficult to imitate and capable of creating organizational efficiencies can generate economic rents and sustain long-term competitive advantage. Using survey data for 106 firms, we measure four dimensions of strategic human capital and find that the market values strategic human capital that has the capability to create efficiencies in the organization and is also difficult for competitors to imitate. We discuss implications for the reporting of human capital in intellectual capital reports and offer suggestions for future research.

This paper addresses revolutionary changes in the education, fertility and market work of U.S. families formed in the 1870s–1920s: Fertility fell from 5.3 to 2.6; the graduation rate of their children increased from 7% to 50%; and the fraction of adulthood wives devoted to market-oriented work increased from 7% to 23% (by one measure).

These trends are addressed within a unified framework to examine the ability of several proposed mechanisms to quantitatively replicate these changes. Based on careful calibration, the choices of successive generations of representative husband-and-wife households over the quantity and quality of their children, household production, and the extent of mother’s involvement in market-oriented production are simulated.

Rising wages, declining mortality, a declining gender wage gap, and increased efficiency and public provision of schooling cannot, individually or in combination, reduce fertility or increase stocks of human capital to levels seen in the data. The best fit of the model to the data also involves: (1) a decreased tendency among parents to view potential earnings of children as the property of parents and (2) rising consumption shares per dependent child.

Greater attention should be given the determinants of parental control of the work and earnings of children for this period.

One contribution is the gathering of information and strategies necessary to establish an initial baseline, and the time paths for parameters and targets for this period beset with data limitations. A second contribution is identifying the contributions of various mechanisms toward reaching those calibration targets.

The distinction between discussing human capital (HC) and its actual measurement is the presence of indices and equations to substantiate the belief of measuring intangibles. The chapter makes a concise mention of research precedents, deriving leads for the foundation of HC. The chapter aims to provide clarity on the concept of HC measurement and bring to light the tools that can confer tangibility to intangibles. It argues that the measurement of HC is an achievable idea; furthering that a systematic review into the inter-disciplinary studies can offer viable solutions to the challenge of measuring intangibles. The chapter while discussing the contention makes a vivid mention of Bhutan’s gross national happiness (GNH), Happiness Seismograph, Cobb–Douglas model and others to make an impression on the minds of the reader.

Much like “Yeti,” the Abominable Snowman whose footprints are everywhere but itself nowhere to be seen, unfounded assertions of human capital as valuable contributors to strategic success continue to proliferate. Many of these treatments are nonbinding, nonmeasureable, idiosyncratic, tautological, and therefore nearly impossible to use for any comparative market valuation. In this chapter, we selectively review the interdisciplinary literature on exemplars of human-derived capital. We systematically examine specific epistemological strengths, weaknesses, and gaps in recognized theories, measures, and practices. In particular, a multidisciplinary, multilevel, connectionist point of view is suggested. We present the case for an evidence-based classification system of human-derived capital at the micro-, meso-, and macro-levels. Our framework goes beyond static stock models by emphasizing dynamic human-derived capital flows, as well as their within-level and cross-level linkages, all within the context of a modern society that increasingly is networked, fluent with technology, and prodigious with social media.

Purpose – Institutional investors need to move beyond first- and second-generation interpretations of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Socially Responsible Investment (SRI) (based on negative filters), and also beyond third and fourth generations (based on positive and integrated filters), which are more sophisticated but still limited, and toward a fifth generation of SRI and CSR. A fifth-generation model systematically incorporates critical intangibles, such as human capital analysis, into the Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) investment process.

Methodology – This chapter incorporates a literature review and draws on a range of qualitative research and case studies on the current and potential role of regulators to regulate nontraditional measures of value.

Findings – The power of institutional investors is currently based on incomplete information from listed companies on how they create value, yet it rests on superior knowledge and insight into the workings of the companies in which they invest, and is only as strong as the quality of the information it uses to make investment decisions on behalf of clients.

Research implications – More research on the role of human capital analysis, and its regulatory consequences, is required.

Practical implications – Regulators need to act within the context of these fifth-generation models in order to create the environment for more transparent investment recommendations.

Originality of chapter – This chapter contributes a qualitative and conceptual perspective to the debate on the role of regulation beyond the global financial crisis.

The interdependencies of people and planet have never been as stark as they are currently, with human-induced global issues prominent, not least climate change, the Covid-19 pandemic and issues of social justice and security. In parallel, institutions, academics and governments are moving towards greater understanding and appreciation of the interdependencies between human and physical systems to drive forward positive change. This chapter focuses on, within the miasmic complexity presented above, how the wider sustainability agenda interacts with the workforce (employees) for the benefit of themselves and their welfare and well-being, as well as that of their employer, the planet and wider society. In particular, the chapter explores two Frameworks – (1) the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (and particularly Goal 8, Decent Work and Economic Development); (2) the International Integrated Reporting Framework (I<IR>F) and particularly how human capital is represented.

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.