BME_2013_11_2 maketas.indd B u s i n e s s, Ma n ag e M e n t a n d e d u c at i o n ISSN 2029-7491 print / ISSN 2029-6169 online 2013, 11(2): 315–332 doi:10.3846/bme.2013.18 CASTING A RESOURCE-BASED VIEW ON INTANGIBLE ASSETS AND EXPORT BEHAVIOUR Seyyed Mohammad Tabatabaei Nasab1, Mohammad Ali Farhangnejad2, Babak Naysary3 1Faculty of Economics, Management and Accounting, Yazd University, Safa-ieh, Pajhohesh Street, POB. 89195-741, Yazd, Iran 2Faculty of Management and Economics, Tarbiat Modares University (TMU), Tehran, Iran 3Department of Accounting, International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia E-mails: 1tabatabaeenasab@yazd.ac.ir (corresponding author); 2mafarhang@yahoo.com; 3bnaysary@gmail.com. Received 28 September 2013; accepted 05 December 2013 Abstract. Prosperous companies in the 21st century have come to know the neces- sity of intangible assets as an important factor to achieve sustainable competitive advantage and constant presence in the international markets. Hence, the purpose of this paper is to examine intangible assets and evaluate its relationship with ex- port behaviour in terms of export intensity (Export-Sales Ratio) and export type (Permanent, Occasional & Periodical). The population under study includes all export firms during 2002 until 2010 in Yazd province, Iran. Research data were collected by questionnaire and in order to answer the research questions and testing hypotheses, MCDM techniques (i.e. AHP & TOPSIS) and statistical analysis (i.e. ANOVA) were utilized. According to the research results, human capital, relational capital, technological capital, corporate reputation, and structural capital placed as the first to the fifth significant factors respectively. Findings revealed that there is a significant difference between the permanent and occasional presence in the in- ternational markets regarding intangible assets; as the mean of intangible assets in the firms with permanent export is higher than the mean of intangible assets in the firms with occasional export. However, there is no significant difference between intangible assets and the export intensity. Keywords: export behaviour, intangible assets, resource-based view, sustainable competitive advantage. Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Tabatabaei Nasab, S. M.; Farhangnejad, M. A.; Naysary, B. 2013. Casting a resource-based view on intan- gible assets and export behaviour, Business, Management and Education 11(2): 315–332. http://dx.doi.org/bme.2013.18 JEL Classification: M30, M31. Copyright © 2013 Vilnius Gediminas Technical University (VGTU) Press Technika www.bme.vgtu.lt 316 S. M. Tabatabaei Nasab et al. Casting a resource-based view on intangible assets and export behaviour 1. Introduction The competition resulted from globalization and rapid technological development has made firms change their strategy to be able to survive and grow in the market in the 21st century. International competitiveness is defined as the ability of firms to supply commodity and services with potential competitive prices with at least covering the opportunity cost of utilized resources (Freebairn 1986). Porter (1985) defines competi- tive advantage as competitive strategy, which leads to produce the products that are not producible by the competitors. Competitive advantage including various kinds of competitive strategies like cost leadership, differentiation and concentration in order to achieve and sustain competitive advantage in the long-term (Porter 1985). Achieving competitive advantage is possible when the current strategy of the firm is value adding in a way that present and future competitors cannot follow it (Barney 1991). According to Wernerfelt (1984), firms could be analysed in terms of products and resources aspects (Wernerfelt 1984). The first aspect is usually discussed in econom- ic theories; however, the latest implies some of the competitive advantages obtained from strategic resources (Wernerfelt 1984; Barney 1991). The firm’s assets consist of tangible and intangible assets, which are used by the firm in a limited period to pro- duce valuable commodities and services for its customers (Wheelen, Hunger 2000). Competitive advantage in assets and resources could create competitive advantage in the market (Hoffman 2000). However, not all of the resources and assets can create sus- tainable competitive advantage (Barney 1991). Resource Based View (RBV) appraises some of the strategic traits of resources as competitive advantage to earn higher profit (Wernerfelt 1984; Barney 2001). These resources should be rare, valuable, inimitable and non-substitutable (Wernerfelt 1984; Barney 2001). According to RBV, a firm can succeed not only by owning tangible assets, but also by proper utilization of intangible assets, which help them achieve sustainable competitive advantage in the long-term (Barney 2001; Bontis et al. 2002; Wade, Hulland 2004). It is evident that there is a direct relation between intangible assets and its economic advantages but since the valuation of intangible assets is not easily possible, determining its amount to achieve competitive advantage and the evaluation of external and internal factors influenc- ing its measurements has become an important issue among researchers (Kozlenkova et al. 2013; Kajanová 2011). The definition of intangible assets refers to recognition of the characteristics and traits that are of strategic importance; organization’s intangible assets are the subset of the firm’s strategic resources portfolio (Wade, Hulland 2004). By creating competitive ability, intangible assets perform as an incentive for entering the international markets and an advantage to develop successful international opera- tions. This issue is more important in export firms which operate in a more competitive and ambiguous environment with lots of uncertainties than the local firms. Hence, the present study examined the significance and ranking of the intangible assets by MCDM techniques, and then the relationship between intangible assets and export behaviour in terms of export intensity and export type was investigated. 317 Business, Management and Education, 2013, 11(2): 315–332 2. Previous researches 2.1. Intellectual capital Nowadays, intellectual capital is known as a valuable tool for organizations and has drawn a lot of attention of managers and researchers as it has proven to add value to the firms (Levickaitė 2011). Increasing attention toward development of this issue is due to the growth of macro-economic phenomenon and economic traits of intangible assets. As Hoffmann and his colleagues indicated in their research, higher access to the strategic resources leads to achieving higher competitive levels through RBV while the firms outside this area are deprived of such resources (Hoffmann et al. 2011). Based on Tovstiga and Tulugurova’s study (2007) the managers’ perception of intellectual capital has a significant and positive impact on companies’ performance. This impact is particularly due to structural and human capital as the most important factors under the RVB framework (Nath et al. 2010; Tovstiga, Tulugurova 2007). According to the literature, intellectual capital can be studied from three aspects including human capital, structural capital and relational capital. Human capital which is known also as human oriented asset (Brooking 1996), Individual capabilities (Sveiby 1997) and learning and development (Kaplan, Norton 1996), is in fact a unique potential of hidden knowledge and collective capabilities in the organization (Bontis 1999, 2001) which exists in the form of skills, experience, capability and knowledge of the employ- ees (Edvinsson, Malone 1997). Davenport and Prusak (1998) defined human capital as intangible capabilities of resources, the efforts made, and time spent on the operations by employees (Davenport, Prusak 1998). Human capital is actually a composite of job experiences and general knowledge of employees like leadership abilities, level of risk taking and ability to resolve the problems. Second aspect of intellectual capital is structural capital that is known as organiza- tional asset and process asset. Structural capital includes all the non-human knowledge such as databases, organizational chart, process implementation instructions, strategies and administrative plans (Roos, Roos 1997). Structural capital should be considered as creation and innovation, operational processes, cultural capital, reconstructions, patents and educational activities (Roos, Roos 1997; Roos et al. 1997). This capital is focused on system installation, structure and current trend of business (Chen et al. 2004), and can be classified into organizational culture, organizational learning, functional processes and information systems. Firms can identify the customer priorities through structural capital and by using information systems (Paiva, Goncalo 2008; Lee, Chang 2007). This capital is one of the main principles in creating learning organizations. Even when employees have the sufficient and proper capabilities, a weak organizational structure that is unable to create value from these skills can hamper the achievement of desired performance. The last aspect of intellectual capital indicates the relationship between the firm and the world outside. Relational capital consists of relationship with customers, shareholders, suppli- ers, competitors, government and society. However, one of the most important characteristics 318 S. M. Tabatabaei Nasab et al. Casting a resource-based view on intangible assets and export behaviour of relational capital is relationship with customers but it is not considered as the only effective factor. In fact, relational capital is a reflection of organization’s activities and many researchers consider it as a strategic capital (Fong Reynoso, Ocampo Figueroa 2010). Description of intellectual capital in a particular framework seems to be difficult and impossible, hence, its’ measurement is very hard. Various researchers (e.g. Johanson et al. 1999; Miller et al. 1999; Bontis, Fitz-Enz 2002; Bozbura 2004) have studied several criteria of intellectual capital. Table 1 represents the most important criteria, based on Bozbura’s study (Bozbura 2004). Table 1. Intellectual capital criteria (Source: Bozbura 2004) Human Capital Criteria Structural Capital Criteria Relational Capital Criteria • Education hour per employee and its cost • Higher education rate of employee (master and doctorate) • Turnover rate • The experience of managers in the firm (year) • Higher skill and ability level • Leadership ability of management level • Successes of work results • Determining their own targets • Being intelligent and creative • Being “the best” in their subject • Satisfaction level • Having ability in their subject • Perform their best • Sharing and reporting knowledge • To be well-grounded about strategies • Risk-taking • Eagerness to source sharing • Freely expressing the opinions • Creating results by using knowledge • The effectiveness of developing employee • Eagerness to share knowledge • The strategy of promoting interoperate relation • Supporting new ideas • Training strategy • Human resource selection strategy • Effective wage system • Succession planning • The cost of realizing work • The time of realizing work • Cost per revenue • Increase revenue per employee • Revenue per employee • Implement new ideas • Supports development of ideas • Leader in developing new ideas and product • Increase productivity • Quick access to information • Procedures support innovation • The existence of a bureaucratic system • Culture is supportive • Access number of database per second • Access to information without any limitation • Determining quality targets • MIS contains all knowledge • Strategic definition • Number of patents • Investment in research and development • R&D investment • Technology investment • Updating the database • Customer satisfaction • Time resolve the problem • The extent of the relation • Value added service • Customer loyalty • Preference in competition • Collecting data for customer request • Interoperate dispersal of customer feedback • Emphasizing customer request • To draw benefit from customer request for the customer satisfaction • Market share improving • Leadership of market share • Having market-oriented processes • Market and customers to be understood by employee • Having a good image in the market • To own the leader brands in the market • Participating social activities that are not sponsored • Being the sponsor for the social activities • Analysis of rivals • Supplier relations • Environment consciousness • Relations with shareholders 319 Business, Management and Education, 2013, 11(2): 315–332 2.2. Corporate reputation Innovation in achieving competitive advantage depends on the amount of intangible as- sets (Flatt, Kowalczyk 2000) and corporate reputation is one of the most important one among these assets (Low, Kalafut 2002). Fombrun (1996) defined the reputation as the people’s perception of a service provider (Fombrun 1996). Therefore, reputation repre- sents the overall assessment of stakeholders over the time and will affect product price and the profit gained due to frequent purchases (Greyser 1995; Fomburn, Van Riel 1997). Previous research findings indicate that the combination of social and economic benefits obtained from reputation is considered as competitive advantage and is one of the most important assets of the organization (Fombrun 1996; Hall 1993). Hence, according to Budworth (1989) it is rational to consider the reputation as an intangible asset (Budworth 1989). Reputation could be regarded as an investment (Kotha et al. 2001) and because of its intangible nature, cannot be traded easily in the market (Hunt, Morgan 1995; Caruanal 1997); so it is a resource that can create competitive advantage and superior financial productivity against competitors (Hunt, Morgan 1995; Bennett, Kottasz 2000). Technology is an intangible asset with high dependency on knowledge, which is mostly implicit knowledge; therefore encoding it is associated with many challenges. High degree of specificity of these assets for the owner organizations made them valu- able and prevents from transmission of these assets to outside the organization. Also the complicated nature of these assets made the realization of their origin very hard (Kogut, Zander 1993). All these, made them valuable, rare and hard to imitate. Therefore, tech- nological capital possesses all the conditions to create and sustain competitive advantage and is a key factor to develop and globalize the organization. These assets play their role in achieving competitive advantage by reducing the costs by means of optimization and improvement of processes and on the other hand by creating distinction by means of innovation in products and taking into account customer needs or improving prod- uct’s quality. Quality and distinction of products can be considered as key elements in achieving success in export (Styles, Ambler 1994). In fact, all of the positive effects of reputation results from the view and perception of individuals and emerges from subsequent decisions and behaviours of stakeholders (Bromley 2002; Fombrun et al. 2000). A strong reputation can attract and maintain employees, customers and suppliers. Competition in the market could be also affected by reputation. If a firm own a weak or non-competitive reputation compared to its competitors, the possibility of being exposed to competitive attacks is more than the well-known firms, which quickly respond to any challenge. There are some general methods to examine corporate reputation. A well-known method is Fortune magazine method, which regularly evaluates the superior firms in each industry by using the comment of executive managers and analysts. This Method considering the criteria such as innovation, people management, use of corporate assets, social responsibility, quality of management, financial soundness, long-term investment, quality of products/services, global competitiveness (Barnett, Pollock 2012). 320 S. M. Tabatabaei Nasab et al. Casting a resource-based view on intangible assets and export behaviour However, the characteristics of individuals who hold superior power in the firm, can affect the reputation (Mahon, Wartick 2003), accordingly popular firms have famous managers. These managers perform functions that lead to reputation (like advertisement, financial support, etc). They also rely on profit making records of firm and consider it as firm’s credibility to improve the reputation (Fombrun 1996). 2.3. Technological capital Research and development are the most essential factors in creating and developing technology, but in the wealth-generating path, exploiting or commercialization of tech- nology is a more important factor. In other words, Technological advantage will occur by the time its results are delivered to customers. Innovation has a broader concept than introducing new technological products and it includes any novelty originated from organization, market or technology in the value chain (Kim, Mauborgne 1997). Organizations with high degree of innovation have the opportunity to develop their markets in order to gain more profit on investment (Teece 1986). While technological advantage is necessary in many industries to sustain competi- tiveness, converting technological advantage into competitive advantage calls for a set of prerequisites. In addition to creating technology through research and endogenous development, managing and organizing the technological transfer, as one of the influ- ential procedures to achieve required technology has become an inevitable necessity for development of technology. Various studies demonstrate that firm’s ability in adjusting the products as per cus- tomer needs while entering export markets is as an important factor (Cavusgil, Zou 1994). Furthermore, in today’s business world, globalization, market sharing and order manufacturing of products considering customer needs, have improved competitive- ness in the form of distinction. Therefore organizations with superior technological resources, have a better opportunity to compete not only in domestic markets but also in the international markets. 2.4. Export behaviour From strategic point of view, intangible assets are the most important factor in creating competitive advantage and are introduced as the prosperity factor in the business. In addi- tion to providing more competitiveness in international level, strategic resources motivate firms to enter foreign markets and are considered as key elements in the development of firm’s overseas operations. Overall, these resources are potential factors to achieve maxi- mum competitiveness; hence, the key role of such resources is signified in internationali- zation process of organizations in general and in export behaviour in particular. In recent years, study of effective variables on export behaviour has been a con- troversial issue among researchers and fruitful researches have been done in this area. Rodrigue and Rodriguez (2005) studied the impact of technological resources on export 321 Business, Management and Education, 2013, 11(2): 315–332 behaviour of Spanish firms in the form of export decision and export intensity vari- ables. According to their findings, product innovation, patents and process innovation have a positive and significant impact on these variables in contrary to research and development expenses that have no significant impact on the aforementioned variables (Rodrigue, Rodriguez 2005). According to Sterlacchini (1999) studies, firm’s size has a positive and significant impact on likelihood of being an exporter while the sub-contract nature of firm has a negative impact on it; also innovation activities, product design costs, and engineering and pre-production developments have a positive and significant impact on the export and total sales ratio (Sterlacchini 1999). Lal (2004) believes that exploiting advanced tools and active labour in organizations are the fundamental and effective factors on export operations (Lal 2004). Basile (2001) studies indicate the great impact of innova- tive capabilities on firm’s competitive status in general and on the probability of being an exporter and export intensity in particular (Basile 2001). For further considerations, we proposed the following hypotheses and the conceptual model of the study as in figure 1. Hypothesis 1: There is no significant difference between the mean of firm’s intan- gible assets in terms of quality of presence in the international markets. Hypothesis 2: There is no significant difference between the mean of intangible assets in terms of export intensity in firms. Human Capital Organizational Capital Relational Capital Corporate Reputation Technological Capital Quality of Presence in the International Markets Export Intensity Intangible Assets Export Behaviour H1 H2 Fig. 1. Conceptual framework of the study (Source: Research initiative) 3. Methods 3.1. Research type & data collection Present study is explanatory in nature and applied a survey method of data collection. Data collection is done using three questionnaires, which are prepared after studying credible scientific resources. First questionnaire is developed in six sections, considering 322 S. M. Tabatabaei Nasab et al. Casting a resource-based view on intangible assets and export behaviour desired variables and by performing some adjustments on indices achieved by experts’ opinions. The first section includes information and study of company profile (e.g. export percentage and export types). The remaining five sections cover the assessment of intangible assets with respect to human capital, structural capital, relational capital, corporate reputation and technological capital in the form of 30 questions using the 5-point Likert scale. In order to evaluate the content validity, the questionnaires were provided to some experts and lecturers in the field of management and marketing, then final modifications was applied based on their provided comments. Considering that the calculated Cronbach’s alpha is higher than minimum acceptable amount (according to Gliem, Gliem (2003)), therefore the reliability of the questionnaire dimensions is verified (Table 2). Second questionnaire is designed to achieve the weight for each intangible asset, in the form of paired comparisons using analytic hierarchy process technique (AHP). The third questionnaire is developed in order to rank the variables using TOPSIS technique and eventually these two questionnaires were delivered to 4 experts in Yazd chamber of commerce, 3 managers and experts in companies under study and 4 university lecturers. Table 2. Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient of questionnaire (Source: Research finding) Questionnaire’s dimensions Cronbach’s Alpha Overall 0.913 Human Capital 0.660 Structural Capital 0.846 Relational Capital 0.737 Corporate Reputation 0.812 Technological Capital 0.838 3.2. Population & sampling Statistical population examined in this study includes all exporter companies during 2002 until 2010 in Yazd province, Iran. Hence, the list of exporter companies was ob- tained from Yazd chamber of commerce and sampling and data collection from target community was done. According to acquired information, the number of export firms during the nine-year period was about 500 cases from which 300 were active and oth- ers were closed down for some reasons. In order to achieve the sample size, initial questionnaires distributed and population parameters estimated. Considering the sample size of 43 according to WoR sampling, 60 questionnaires distributed among managers and experts in export firms, from which 33 questionnaires returned that represents 55% of response rate. 3.3. Data analysis techniques In order to data analysis, SPSS, Expert Choice and Excel software packages were used. As it is revealed from Kolmogorov-Smirnov test results, all dimensions of intangible assets follows normal distribution (Table 3). 323 Business, Management and Education, 2013, 11(2): 315–332 Table 3. Results of Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (Source: Research finding) Dimensions Human Capital Structural Capital Relational Capital Corporate Reputation Technological Capital N 33 33 33 33 33 Normal parameters Mean 3.439 3.368 3.558 3.388 3.626 Standard deviation 0.508 0.762 0.533 0.743 0.865 Most Extreme Differences Absolute 0.093 0.092 0.153 0.13 0.213 Positive 0.089 0.083 0.076 0.106 0.09 Negative –0.093 –0.092 –0.153 –0.13 –0.213 Kolmogorov- Smirnov Z 0.533 0.531 0.88 0.749 1.221 Asymp. Sig (2-tailed) 0.938 0.94 0.421 0.628 0.101 To achieve the weight of each intangible asset, AHP technique used and finally each dimension ranked by TOPSIS method. AHP is one of the most efficient Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) techniques, which introduced by Thomas L. Saaty in 1970. This technique is based on paired comparisons and allows to evaluate differ- ent scenarios. This method providing hierarchy decision tree that shows indices and decision al- ternatives. Then a series of paired comparison is performed which identifies weight of each factor in line with other alternatives, comparative tables are prepared from bottom to top based on the hierarchy tree. In other words, alternatives should be compared by pair wise comparison at different levels considering each factor. Finally, this logic in- corporates the matrixes obtained from paired comparisons in such a way that optimum decision comes out (Saaty 1980). Thus, four steps including developing hierarchical decision making tree, calculating weight, calculating consistency rate and choosing the best alternative can describe AHP. Accordingly, different dimension of intangible assets ranking by using TOPSIS tech- nique. Hwang and Yoon (1981) introduced this technique for the first time. Basic logic of this technique is to define negative and positive ideals. Positive ideal is a solution that maximizes desirable indices and minimizes undesirable indices. Similarly, the negative ideal maximizes undesirable indices and minimizes desirable indices. Optimum strategy is the one that is closest to the positive ideal and farthest from the negative ideal. Rating the solutions in the TOPSIS technique is done based on their relative similarity to ideal solution (Hwang, Yoon 1981). 4. Results Collecting the questionnaires and review of obtained data, revealed that 22 of managers had a bachelor or Master’s degree (66.6%) and the rest of them had advanced diploma. Age wise study of the managers shown that 21 of them (63.6%) were 46 to 60 years old, considering that, 12 managers (36.4%) had 21 to 30 years of work experience. Among 324 S. M. Tabatabaei Nasab et al. Casting a resource-based view on intangible assets and export behaviour 33 examined companies, 93.9% are private ownership, 72.7% had more than 10 years of activity and 27.3% had between 11 to 50 employee. Export-sales ratio in 15 companies (45.4%) was less than 10 percent of total sales and in one company (3%) it was between 51 to 75 percent. In addition, 17 companies (51.1%) had permanent exports, 10 compa- nies (30.3%) had periodical exports and 6 companies (18.2%) had occasional exports. 4.1. Assessing and ranking the intangible assets AHP technique was used to weight and assess the importance of intangible assets. For this purpose, the desired data was extracted through AHP questionnaires based on the priority level of each factor and considering paired comparisons performed. According to the results obtained from Expert Choice 2000 software, human capital, relational capital, technological capital, corporate reputation and structural capital are the most important assets, respectively. It should be mentioned that inconsistency rate of paired comparisons regarding individual comments is 0.03 which demonstrates an accept- able level of inconsistency (Inco ≤ 0.1) among the respondents. Table 4 represents the Importance weight of each intangible asset. Table 4. Importance weight of intangible assets (Source: Research finding) No. Intangible assets Weight 1 Human Capital 0.347 2 Structural Capital 0.096 3 Relational Capital 0.259 4 Corporate Reputation 0.117 5 Technologic Capital 0.181 After considering the weight of intangible assets by AHP technique, TOPSIS method was used in order to ranking them. According to the results and relative closeness coef- ficient of indices to the ideal solution, human capital ranked first and then relational and structural capital ranked second and third respectively (Table 5). Table 5. Results of ranking the intangible assets (Source: Research finding) Final Ranking Intangible Assets di+ (Distance from Positive Ideal) di- (Distance from Negative Ideal) CCi (Closeness Coefficient) 1 Human Capital 0.006 0.091 0.942 2 Relational Capital 0.043 0.108 0.713 3 Technological Capital 0.060 0.115 0.658 4 Corporate Reputation 0.082 0.109 0.569 5 Structural Capital 0.091 0.091 0.499 325 Business, Management and Education, 2013, 11(2): 315–332 4.2. Review of the firms’ export behaviour According to prior studies and after reviewing the experts’ comments from chamber of commerce, export behaviour of the firms was studied considering two variables, which are quality of presence in the market and export-sales ratio. According to the quality of presence, active companies are divided into 3 categories including permanent, periodical and occasional. The second variable i.e. export-sales ratio is divided into 4 categories. The first category belongs to firms with export less than 10 percent, second one includes firms with export between 11 to 25 percent, third one includes firms with export be- tween 26 and 50 percent and finally fourth one represents firms with export more than 50 percent. In the followings, the relationship between above mentioned variables and intangible assets is studied. 4.2.1. Investigating the relationship between organization’s intangible assets and quality of presence in the international markets In order to examine the relationship between organization’s intangible assets and export behaviour in terms of presence in the market, Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) test was used. In this test, H0 indicates that there is no significant difference between the mean of organization’s intangible assets regarding quality of presence in the international markets, and H1 indicates that at least one of the studied mean pairs are not equal. Table 6. Relationship between intangible assets and quality of presence in the international mar- kets (Source: Research finding) F Sig Test Result 4.057 0.031 Rejected According to the results, there is a significant difference between intangible assets mean in terms of quality of presence in the international markets (Table 6). In order to find out the difference between means of each export type, Tukey test were used. In this test, H0 indicates that there is no significant difference between the means and H1 indicates the opposite. Table 7. Comparison of intangible assets situation in terms of quality of presence in the interna- tional markets (Source: Research finding) I J I-J Sig Test Result Upper Limit Lower Limit Permanent Periodical 0.346 0.156 Rejected 0.799 –0.106 Permanent Occasional 0.592 0.044 Accepted 1.171 0.139 Periodical Occasional 0.246 0.593 Rejected 0.871 –0.379 According to the information obtained from this test, a significant difference be- tween permanent and occasional presence in the international markets and the level of intangible assets was observed. Considering that the upper and lower limits obtained in this comparison are positive, therefore mean of intangible assets for the firms with 326 S. M. Tabatabaei Nasab et al. Casting a resource-based view on intangible assets and export behaviour permanent export is higher than that of firms with occasional exports (Table 7). Thus regarding given information, we are able to rank each type of export firms by mean of intangible assets, using Tukey test. Table 8. Ranking the export types in terms of intangible assets (Source: Research finding) Export Type Categorizing in terms of mean 1 2 Permanent 3.707 Periodical 3.361 3.361 Occasional 3.115 Sig 0.284 0.52 Based on the results, permanent presence in export market with the mean of 3.707 and periodical presence with the mean of 3.361 are placed in the first group and also periodical presence along with occasional presence with the mean of 3.115 are placed in the second group (Table 8). It is worth noting that in case of the firms with periodical presence in export markets, since its mean is located between that of firms with perma- nent and occasional presence, in spite of having higher mean of intangible assets rather than firms with occasional presence, it is located in both groups in mentioned category. 4.2.2. Investigating the relationship between organization’s intangible assets and export intensity In order to study the relationship between the level of intangible assets in organization and export behaviour in terms of export intensity, ANOVA test was used. In this test, H0 indicates that there is no significant difference between the mean of intangible as- sets in terms of export intensity in organizations and H1 indicates that at least one of the mean pairs are not equal. Table 9. Relationship between intangible assets and export intensity (Source: Research finding) F Sig Test Result 0.673 0.577 Accepted According to the result, there is no significant difference between organization’s intangible assets and exports intensity among the export firms (Table 9). 5. Conclusions The main difference between foreign markets and domestic markets is the intense com- petition between companies and organizations. This difference is reflected as higher quality, lower prices and domestic and international competitors. Due attention to com- petitive advantage can be an important factor for survival in global markets. Competitive advantage can be achieved through firm’s strategic resources among which, because of 327 Business, Management and Education, 2013, 11(2): 315–332 creating competitive advantage, intangible assets are of a great importance. Some re- sources such as intangible assets are particularly important for firms, because of creating capacity for innovation and achieving competitive advantage, through distinction, and affecting their export behaviour in the long term. Hence, if a proper understanding of these resources is provided for corporate managers, it can be expected that they improve the situation of the company, sustain the competitive advantage and develop the export market share with a clear and informed vision. Given the importance of these resources, in addition to engaging the senior man- agement in decision-making areas, the measuring of its current situation in the organi- zation and policy making for its improvement is also necessary. In this study, which is conducted to assess the status of intangible assets in export firms’ community, the importance level and ranking of them were measured using MCDM techniques and the relationship between intangible assets and export behaviour was studied. AHP results showed that the human capital ranked first with the weight of 0.347, re- lational capital ranked second with the weight of 0.259, technological capital ranked third with the weight of 0.181, corporate reputation ranked fourth with the weight of 0.117 and eventually structural capital ranked fifth with the weight of 0.096. As it revealed in the ranking, human capital is introduced as the most important factor among the intangible assets and particularly among the intellectual capital. According to TOPSIS results the relative approach degree of indices to the ideal solution, human capital placed in the first place (CCi = 0.941), relational capital in the second place (CCi = 0.713), technological capital in the third place (CCi = 0.657), corporate reputation in the fourth place (CCi = 0.568) and structural capital occupied the fifth place (CCi = 0.499). These results emphasis on human resources more than other aspects; it must be con- sidered and noted more than ever and be placed on top corporate development program priorities. In addition, given that strengthening human capital can underlie the con- tinuous presence of firms in the international business, therefore it is essential that we change our view and attitude towards the human capital of export firms considering its undeniable importance. To improve and promote this strategic resource, we recommend the establishment of strategic human resources management in the export community. To study the behaviour of export firms, we reviewed two variables including quality of presence in the market and export intensity. According to the quality of presence in the market, active companies were divided into three categories including permanent, periodical and occasional. According to obtained results, there is a significant differ- ence between intangible assets of the organization and the quality of presence in the market by export firms. Those results revealed that there is a significant difference between permanent and occasional presence in the market and the level of intangible assets of firm in a way that mean of intangible assets of firms with permanent export in the area under study is higher than that of firms with occasional export. In addition, permanent presence in the export market with the mean of 3.707 and periodical pres- ence with the mean of 3.361 are placed in the first group and periodical presence along 328 S. M. Tabatabaei Nasab et al. Casting a resource-based view on intangible assets and export behaviour with occasional presence with the mean of 3.115 is placed in second group. According to these results, it can be stated that firms with periodical export are in the transition stage, which in case of strengthening their intangible assets they become permanent exporters and otherwise they may fall into the occasional export companies’ category. The second variable was export intensity i.e. export-sales ratio, according to which firms in this field are classified into four categories including less than 10 percent, between 11 to 25 percent, between 26 to 50 percent and more than 50 percent. Based on the results we can conclude that there is no significant difference between organiza- tion’s intangible assets and the export intensity in the export firms. So in addition to intangible assets of the organization, probably other factors such as type of industry, export commodity and selected export markets have a great impact on export intensity and accurate comment on this issue require further careful investigations. For this pur- pose it is recommended that the relationship between intangible assets and intensity of exports be studied considering the type of industry and export commodity including raw material or finished good. According to the results of this study, the following practical recommendations are provided: 1. Given that achievement of sustainable competitive advantage depends upon ha- ving an acceptable level of intangible assets (which according to our results were higher in firms with permanent presence) therefore, we suggest that managers and policy makers should pay due attention to strengthening strategies for these resources regarding their importance in various areas of industry and business. Considering that intangible resources are not imitable by competitors, the com- petitive advantage obtained by them is sustainable and thus will result in stability and even export development. 2. According to inevitable importance of human capital among all types of intangible assets, it is necessary for the managers to change their view toward the human capital in the export community. Hence, to optimize and improve this strategic resource we recommend that the strategic human resource management to be esta- blished in the mentioned community. In order to improve the human capital in the export firms, managers should be considered personnel empowerment (including enhancing performance and skill level, supporting innovation and intelligence, employees training and educational programs), knowledge management (inclu- ding knowledge acquisition, sharing and utilization) and supportive organizational culture (including risk taking, supporting new ideas, encouragement to coopera- tion, efficient salary system) as their priority in strategic planning. 3. Taking into account that the mean of intangible assets in the firms with perma- nent export is greater than that of firms with occasional export, we can infer that intangible assets play a significant role in developing weak firms into strong ones. Hence, it is suggested for weak firms to first evaluate and measure the level of above mentioned resources in their unit, then considering the firm’s priorities and 329 Business, Management and Education, 2013, 11(2): 315–332 abilities, the operational plans and quantitative objectives to be set in order to optimize the level of intangible assets. For instance benchmarking prosperous and pioneer companies can be helpful in setting the targets and taking the steps to- wards achieving them. 4. According to our research findings, intangible assets have a direct impact on export development; therefore, reviewing, monitoring and improving these varia- bles must be a priority in the senior manager’s agenda. In this regard implemen- ting intangible assets excellence models by public institutions and export councils in evaluating export firms could be helpful for supporting successful strategies. 6. Further research In order to conduct further research the following suggestions are provided to researchers: 1. Further study on intangible assets development procedures in industrial units based on the type of industry and then comparing the results to that of current research could bring more insight in this area. Therefore, we suggest the future researchers to focus their work on comparisons among industries. 2. Given that no significant difference between intangible assets of export firms and their export intensity was observed, we recommend further accurate study of this relationship in future studies. It could include study of the relationship between intangible assets and export intensity regarding type of industry and type of export commodity (raw material or finished goods), because it is expected that in case of break down in the statistical population, different and interesting results would obtain which will provide new insight for analysts. 3. Because of the inherent ambiguity in the organization’s intangible assets, we recommend the researchers to optimize their analysis by using fuzzy methods; in this regard using fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS techniques would be helpful. 4. The focus of current research was on the export firms, but developing the research community to non-exporting firms would help to analyze the possibility of being an exporter for these firms from the intangible assets point of view. References Barnett, M. L.; Pollock, T. G. 2012. The Oxford handbook of corporate reputation. Oxford University Press. Barney, J. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage, Journal of Management 17(1): 99–120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108 Barney, J. B. 2001. Is the resource-based view a useful prospective for strategic management research? Yes, Academy of Management Review 26(1): 41–56. Basile, R. 2001. Export behaviour of Italian manufacturing firms over the nineties: the role of innova- tion, Research Policy 30(8): 1185–1201. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(00)00141-4 330 S. M. Tabatabaei Nasab et al. Casting a resource-based view on intangible assets and export behaviour Bennett, R.; Kottasz, R. 2000. Practitioner perceptions of corporate reputation: an empirical investiga- tion, Corporate Communication: an International Journal 5(4): 224–235. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13563280010357349 Bontis, N. 1999. Managing organizational knowledge by diagnosing intellectual capital: framing and advancing the state of the field, International Journal of Technology Management 1(5,8): 433–462. Bontis, N. 2001. Assessing knowledge assets: a review of the models used to measure intellectual capital, International Journal of Management Reviews 3(1): 41–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-2370.00053 Bontis, N.; Crossan, M.; Hulland, J. 2002. Managing an organizational learning system by aligning stocks and flows, Journal of Management Studies 39(4): 437–469. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.t01-1-00299 Bontis, N.; Fitz-Enz, J. 2002. Intellectual capital ROI: a causal map of human capital antecedents and con- sequents, Journal of Intellectual Capital 3(3): 223–247. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14691930210435589 Bozbura, F. T. 2004. Measurement and application of intellectual capital in turkey, Learning Organization 11(4/5): 357–367. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09696470410538251 Bromley, D. 2002. Comparing corporate reputations: league tables, quotients, benchmarks, or case studies?, Corporate Reputation Review 5(1): 35–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.crr.1540163 Brooking, A. 1996. Intellectual capital, core asset for the third millennium enterprise. International Thomson Business Press, USA. Budworth, D. 1989. Intangible assets of companies. Science Support Group, London. Cavusgil, S. T.; Zou, S. 1994. Marketing strategy-performance relationship: an investigation of the empir- ical link in export market ventures, Journal of Marketing 58(1): 1–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1252247 Chen, J.; Zhu, Z.; Xie, H. Y. 2004. Measuring intellectual capital: a new model and empirical study, Journal of Intellectual Capital 5(1): 195–212. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14691930410513003 Davenport, T. H.; Prusak, L. 1998. Working knowledge: how organizations manage what they know. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. Edvinsson, L.; Malone, M. S. 1997. Intellectual capital. Realising your companies true value by finding its hidden brainpower. Harper Business Publisher, New York, NY. Flatt, S. J.; Kowalczyk, S. J. 2000. Do corporate reputations partly reflect external perceptions of or- ganizational culture?, Corporate Reputation Review 3(4): 351–358. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.crr.1540125 Fombrun, C. J. 1996. Reputation: realising value from the corporate image. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. Fombrun, C. J.; Gardberg, N. A.; Sever, J. M. 2000. The reputation quotientSM: a multi-stakeholder measure of corporate reputation, The Journal of Brand Management 7(4): 241–255. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/bm.2000.10 Fombrun, C. J.; Van Riel, C. B. M. 1997. The reputational landscape, Corporate Reputation Review 1(1, 2): 5–13. Fong Reynoso, C.; Ocampo Figueroa, L. E. 2010. Intangible resources as a determinant of accelerated internationalization, Global Journal of Business Research 4(4): 95–105. Freebairn, J. 1986. Implications of wages and industrial policies on competitiveness of agricultural export industries‚ Paper Presented at the Australian Agricultural Economic Society Policy Forum, Canberra, Australia. Gliem, J. A.; Gliem, R. R. 2003. Calculating, interpreting, and reporting Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for likert-type scales, Midwest Research-to-Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community Education. 331 Business, Management and Education, 2013, 11(2): 315–332 Greyser, S. A. 1995. Corporate reputation: aid to growth and shield, Inside PR and Reputation Management, 5–6. Hall, R. 1993. A framework linking intangible resources and capabilities to sustainable competitive advantage, Strategic Management Journal 14: 607–618. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250140804 Hoffman, N. P. 2000. An examination of the sustainable competitive advantage, concept; past, present, and future‚ Academy of Marketing Science Review 4: 245–348. Hoffmann, V. E.; Molina-Morales, F. X.; Martinez-Fernandez, M. T. 2011. Evaluation of competitive- ness in ceramic industrial districts in Brazil, European Business Review 23(1): 87–105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09555341111098008 Hunt, D. S.; Morgan, R .M. 1995. The comparative advantage theory of competition‚ Journal of Marketing 59: 1–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1252069 Hwang, C. L.; Yoon, K. 1981. Multiple attribute decision making methods and applications. Springer- Verlag, New York, NY. Johanson, U.; Martensson, M.; Skoog, M. 1999, measuring and managing intangibles: 11 Swedish exploratory case studies, Paper presented at the international symposium measuring and reporting intellectual capital: experiences, issues and prospects. Amsterdam. Kajanová, J. 2011. The competitive advantage in the global labour market, Business, Management and Education 9(2): 157–170. http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/bme.2011.11 Kaplan, R. S.; Norton, D. P. 1996. Balanced scorecard: translating strategy into action. Harvard Business School Press. Kim, W.; Mauborgne, R. 1997. Value innovation: the strategic logic of high growth, Harvard Business Review 75(1): 102–115. Kogut, B.; Zander, U. 1993. Knowledge of the firm and the evolutionary theory of the multinational corporation, Journal of International Business Studies 24(4): 625–645. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490248 Kotha, S.; Rajgogal, S.; Rindova, V. 2001. Reputation building and performance: an empirical analysis of the top-50 pure internet firms, European Management Journal 19(6): 570–586. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0263-2373(01)00083-4 Kozlenkova, I. V.; Samaha, S. A.; Palmatier, R. W. 2013. Resource-based theory in marketing, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 1–21. Lal, K. 2004. E-business and export behavior: evidence from Indian firms, World Development 32(3): 505–517. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2003.10.004 Lee, M. C.; Chang, T. 2007. Linking knowledge management and innovation management in e-busi- ness, International Journal of Innovation and Learning 4(2): 145–159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJIL.2007.011690 Levickaitė, R. 2011. Four approaches to the creative economy: general overview, Business, Management and Education 9(1): 81–92. Low, J.; Kalafut, P. 2002, invisible advantage: how intangibles are driving business performance. Perseus Publishing, Cambridge. Mahon, J. F.; Wartick, S. L. 2003. Dealing with stakeholders: how reputation, credibility and framing influ- ence the game, Corporate Reputation Review 6(1): 19–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.crr.1540187 Miller, M.; DuPont, B. D.; Fera, V.; Jeffrey, R.; Mahon, B.; Payer, B. M.; Starr, A. 1999, Measuring and reporting intellectual capital from a diverse Canadian industry perspective: experiences, issues and prospects, Paper presented at the International Symposium – Measuring and Reporting Intellectual Capital: Experience, Issues, and Prospects, 9–11 June, Amsterdam. 332 S. M. Tabatabaei Nasab et al. Casting a resource-based view on intangible assets and export behaviour Nath, P.; Nachiappan, S.; Ramanathan, R. 2010. The impact of marketing capability, operations ca- pability and diversification strategy on performance: a resource-based view, Industrial Marketing Management 39(2): 317–329. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2008.09.001 Paiva, E. L.; Gonçalo, C. R. 2008. Organisational knowledge and industry dynamism: an empirical analysis, International Journal of Innovation and Learning 5(1): 66–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJIL.2008.015948 Porter, M. 1985. Competitive advantage: creating and sustaining superior performance. Free Press New York. Rodrigue, J. L.; Rodriguez, R. M. G. 2005. Technology and export behaviour: a resource-based view approach, International Business Review 14: 539–557. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2005.07.002 Roos, G.; Roos, J. 1997. Measuring your company›s intellectual performance, 30(3): 413–426. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0024-6301(97)90260-0 Roos, G.; Roos, J.; Dragonetti, N.; Edvinsson, L. 1997. Intellectual capital: navigating in the new busi- ness landscape. New York University Press, New York, NY. Saaty, T. L. 1980. The analytic hierarchy process. Mcgraw-Hill, New York, NY. Sterlacchini, A. 1999. Do innovative activities matter to small firms in non-R&D-intensive industries? An application to export performance, Research Policy 28(8): 819–832. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00023-2 Styles, C.; Ambler, T. 1994. Successful export practice: the UK experience, International Marketing Review 11(6): 23–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02651339410072999 Sveiby, K. 1997. The new organizational wealth: managing and measuring knowledge-based assets. San Francisco, CA: Berrett Koehler. Teece, D. J. 1986. Profiting from technological innovation, Research Policy 15(6): 285–305. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(86)90027-2 Tovstiga, G.; Tulugurova, E. 2007. Intellectual capital practices and performance in Russian enter- prises, Journal of Intellectual Capital 8(4): 695–707. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14691930710830846 Wade, M.; Hulland, J. 2004. The resource-based view and information systems research: review, exten- sion, and suggestions for future research, MIS Quarterly 28(1): 107–142. Wernerfelt, B. 1984. A resource-based view of the firm, Strategic Management Journal 5(2): 171–180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250050207 Wheelen, T.; Hunger, D. 2000. Strategic management business policy. 7th Edition, Prentice Hall. Seyyed Mohammad TABATABAEI NASAB. Is an assistant professor and the dean of Faculty of Economics, Management and Accounting at Yazd University. His area of interest falls into the market- ing, human resource management and intellectual capital management. Mohammad Ali FARHANGNEJAD. Is a PhD candidate in the Faculty of Management and Economics at Tarbiat Modares University (TMU). His area of interest includes knowledge management, perfor- mance evaluation and science and technology policy. Babak NAYSARY. Is a PhD candidate in Department of Accounting at International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM). His area of interest includes international business, corporate governance and intel- lectual capital.