– The purpose of this paper is to study, mainly from the point of view of methodological accounting principles, the value added intellectual coefficient (VAIC), introduced by Pulic as a measure of intellectual capital efficiency (ICE). More specifically, the aim of the analysis is to investigate the strengths and weaknesses of the VAIC, primarily from the accounting theory perspective.
– The approach to the study of Pulic's contribution is as follows: first the authors submitted Pulic's methodology to a “conceptual” test, in order to check whether it contradicts any basic accounting principles. Then the results of this methodological test were compared to those obtained by the authors who have criticized Pulic's proposal, in order to check for any concordance or discordance with the literature.
– Several authors have discussed the crucial aspects of the VAIC. In this paper the focus is primarily on Andriessen's concerns, since they relate to the theoretical accounting aspects of Pulic's proposal, which is the topic of the paper. First of all, the authors have found that the suggestion of Pulic, centered on the Value Added Income Statement, does not modify or contradict any of the fundamental accounting principles. Therefore the criticisms made by Professor Andriessen should be subject to future research. Furthermore the performance measure proposed by Pulic (VAIC) is not a genuine rival to the traditional methodologies (e.g. the Economic Value Added (EVA)), as instead emerges from Pulic's papers. VAIC and EVA measure different aspects of the performance and therefore may usefully live together in a context in which the performance is measured through multicriteria methodologies, such as the Balanced Scorecard, Skandia Navigator or Intangible Asset Monitor.
– The practical implications of the results are: the correct placing of Pulic's contribution into the accounting principles theory; and the manner for using the VAIC methodology in a multicriteria performance evaluation. The authors believe that both aspects have relevant implications for business accounting practice.
– The paper shows that almost all of the misunderstandings of the literature debate, regarding Pulic's proposal, arise from a “semantic shift” generated by the fact that Pulic uses the terms human capital and structural capital with a completely different meaning from that of the Skandia Navigator. Authors’ hope is that the study described in the paper will contribute to a better understanding of: the way to calculate and to interpret the efficiency of intellectual capital (IC) in a correct manner; and the role of IC on firm multicriteria performances.
