On the basis of empirical illustrations from five Danish firms this paper discusses how the objects of intellectual capital statements were constructed. These objects were the activities that defined knowledge management, and the intellectual capital statements monitored these through depicting a particular narrativised strategy for managing knowledge – called a knowledge narrative – and through a monitoring system that reflected the activities set in motion to mobilise the strategy for managing knowledge. Particularly, the paper discusses the idea of knowledge as a narrative. It is suggested that for knowledge to count, it has to be able to produce something. This something is found the value‐to‐the‐user of the products and services.

Many firms have started disclosing information on intellectual capital. Financial analysts, however, ask for more disclosure related to strategy and often find intellectual capital statement less relevant. Drawing on results from a study of disclosure of information on intellectual capital in Danish initial public offering (IPO) prospectuses, this commentary argues that the perceived irrelevance of intellectual capital is somewhat paradoxical since intellectual capital reports and recent prospectuses share remarkable similarities with respect to the intellectual capital indicators disclosed. Further, the commentary argues that, for intellectual capital disclosure to be perceived as relevant from a capital market perspective, the information should be disclosed as an integral part of a framework illuminating the value creation processes of the firm. The emerging practice with respect to intellectual capital offers such a framework for disclosing the business model of the knowledge‐based company.

Purpose – This paper compares balanced scorecard and intellectual capital and finds important differences between their theoretical underpinnings, which suggest that the breath of indicators will work differently in organisations. Design/methodology/approach – Analysing texts about balanced scorecard and intellectual capital, the paper discusses not the obvious similarities – that they are both integrated performance management systems – but four more aspects: strategy, organisation, management, and indicators. Comparing these four dimensions the paper discusses the differences arising from the very different theories of strategy that they presuppose: competitive advantage versus competency strategy. Findings – The paper suggests that the very different notions of strategy that underpin the balanced scorecard and the intellectual capital approach make such comprehensive performance management systems behave in very different ways – the difference between a tightly coupled and a loosely coupled system accounts for this. Research limitations/implications – The main limitation is that the paper is primarily a literature study and therefore it is not certain that in practical situations companies will necessarily adopt the theoretical perspectives mobilised behind balance scorecard and intellectual capital. Practical implications – The usefulness of that paper is that practitioners may understand the breath of implications of a shift in strategic focus and realise the various organisational conditions that can help mobilise the use of indicators in different ways. Originality/value – The paper's analysis shows how the two models assume how indicators work in an organisational systems and concludes that the differences are significant and that therefore there are considerable differences in how a system of indicators may work in the context of balanced scorecard compared with the context of intellectual capital.