Greenwashing (GW) is a complex, dynamic, interdisciplinary, multidimensional, and multifaceted phenomenon. There are more theoretical than empirical studies on GW because of several difficulties in collecting accurate data and obtaining objective GW measures. After disentangling the multifaceted GW phenomenon by describing its main dimensions, this study provides a systematic methodological literature review on empirical research papers published from 1990 to 2022 in journals of Business, Management, and Accounting to understand how empirical researchers are operationalizing GW and how our methodological choices affect our understanding of this phenomenon. Our results show that the actual GW operationalization is challenging and that scholars are highly uncertain about how such operationalization should be designed and implemented to provide an effective GW measurement instrument. Further, a growing number of studies investigate hypothetical GW cases adopting perception‐based measures, while limited research explores real GW cases.

Purpose: The aim of this study is to reflect on how the specific nature of intellectual capital influences the valuation process, in practice, and how it impacts on some of the qualities of its value.Design/methodology/approach: This study is based on a case study (“Ankon”) developed by adopting a modest interventionist approach.Findings: This study highlights the relevance of the intellectual capital valuation process in spite of the intellectual capital value per se. In fact, while intellectual capital value seems to present a limited level of objectivity, consistency, comparability and understandability, its valuation process can be considered an opportunity to visualise and understand intellectual capital and its influence on financial performance. In other words, intellectual capital valuation can be considered as a practice useful to crave the attention of the managers on intellectual capital in action.Research limitations/implications: The main limitations of this study are related to the particular research methodology adopted (action research case study) and to the size of the case investigated.Practical implications: The findings provided by this research should be useful to those interested in studying intellectual capital in action and in developing new valuation models or refining existing models. Finally, considering that some of the limitations of intellectual capital value can be related to the absence of generally accepted valuation guidelines (e.g. the absence of a common definition, a single process, etc.), this can represent an incentive for policy makers to draw up useful rules to make intellectual capital value more understandable for an outsider and to identify managerial best practices.Originality/value: In comparison with previous studies on intellectual capital valuation, this one focuses on an in vivo intellectual capital valuation process. In addition, this research stresses the specificities and criticalities that emerge from a process perspective in which intellectual capital is considered as a conventional object. Moreover, this paper enriches the previous critical discussions on intellectual capital measurement focusing on intellectual capital financial value.

Purpose: The aim of this paper is to help to address the need for empirical investigations on intellectual capital and intellectual liabilities “in action” and their consequences in terms of value creation and value destruction. In light of this consideration, this study aims to investigate if and how intellectual capital and intellectual liabilities influence the value creation and destruction processes, that is, if intellectual liabilities “in action” simply mirror intellectual capital dynamics or if they present some specificities.Design/methodology/approach: A multiple case study method is adopted in order to understand intellectual capital and intellectual liabilities “in action”.Findings: This study highlights the relevance of intellectual liabilities within the intellectual capital discourse. In particular, it shows that intellectual capital and intellectual liabilities affect the value creation process in different ways. Moreover, it emerges that intellectual liabilities tend to be left out of managerial discussions. Stemming from this, the idea of intellectual equity is proposed and conceived as the logical difference between intellectual capital and intellectual liabilities.Research limitations/implications: The main limitations of this study are twofold. The first is related to the methodology adopted and in particular to the qualitative mapping process developed. The second is the fact that the constructs to analyse were not indicated by the firms but by the author in order to make the results comparable.Practical implications: This study contributes to the development of the literature on “intellectual capital in action” and “intellectual capital in practice” bringing in the idea of intellectual liabilities and the consideration that intellectual capital can create, but also destroy, value. Moreover, it highlights the need to monitor and manage intellectual liabilities in order to control the negative effects generated by intellectual capital. Therefore, this analysis has both theoretical and practical implications.Originality/value: In comparison to the extant literature mentioned, this study does not analyse IC only in terms of value creation, but also in terms of value destruction. Moreover, instead of proposing and developing new concepts, methods and tools, this research investigates intellectual liabilities “in action”. In addition, this work jointly considers value creation and value destruction processes.

Purpose: This paper helps to address the need for investigations on intellectual liabilities (ILs). In light of these considerations, the purpose of this paper is to present an analysis of the extant literature on ILs in order to offer a solid base for improving the intellectual capital (IC) research agenda. Design/methodology/approach: This study proposes a descriptive review. Refereed published studies and seminal works were analysed and then systematised. Findings: This study shows that ILs tend to be overlooked in the IC discourse and identifies two main conceptions of ILs and the related measurement methods and tools. Furthermore, this study underlines the need to focus not only on what ILs are, but also on what ILs do. Finally, it supports the idea of adopting a holistic approach that considers both the positive (related to resources) and the negative (referred to liabilities) sides of IC. Research limitations/implications: The inability to cover all the literature that directly or indirectly deals with ILs is the main limitation of this paper. Time restrictions, language constraints and imperfect information narrow the coverage. Nevertheless, the adopted research methodology has allowed the authors to collect the main contributions in this field, in order to offer a concise, but complete picture of the studies on ILs. Practical implications: This paper can be of help to those interested in analysing ILs, as it aims to systematise and offer a concise overview of the current literature in this field, which should be of use to both researchers and practitioners. Moreover, it offers some reflections on the topic and identifies possible research paths useful to developing future studies of theoretical and practical relevance. Originality/value: This review differs from the previous ones dedicated to the IC discourse in two main ways: first, it does not focus on the whole of IC or on parts of it but on a specific topic, such as ILs, usually left out of the analyses and never adequately considered in previous literature reviews; second, it includes the publications on IC from 1999 to date and some unpublished works, in order to have both seminal and more consolidated studies. © Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Purpose: – The purpose of this paper is to analyse, through a temporal lens and from a managerial perspective, the role played by intellectual capital (IC) and intellectual liabilities (ILs) “in practice” within the value creation and value destruction processes. In particular, this study is based on the following research question: to what extent are time and its attributes considered, measured, and discussed with reference to IC and ILs and their influence on financial capital (FC)? In order to achieve this purpose, the author has carried out a field study.Design/methodology/approach: – A field study method is adopted in order to understand IC and ILs “in action” from a temporal perspective.Findings: – This study highlights the relevance of time when IC and ILs are analysed from a dynamic perspective. In particular, the main findings are the following. First, it emerges that the time dimension of IC tends not to be measured due to the complexity of IC itself and to the lack of adequate accounting practices. Second, IC time is generally considered to be non-cyclical and random. Third, even if time is not measured, some companies talk about it and when this is done with regularity, time perceptions move from an individual sphere to a collective one and they become more and more reliable. Moreover, IC performance is perceived to be “distant” from FC performance: the succession of events and the time lags are difficult to define and quantify as the influence of IC on FC is mediated by several resources and events. Lastly, the value destruction process related to ILs tends to generate negative effects faster than the value creation one, especially with reference to the impacts of IC on FC.Research limitations/implications: – The main limitations of this study are twofold. The first is related to the methodology adopted and the related risks that the results may be subject to both interviewee and interviewer bias and interpretation. The second is related to the fact that the constructs to be discussed were not proposed by the firms but by the author, in order to make the results comparable.Practical implications: – This study contributes to the literature on IC and ILs “in action” and “in practice”. Moreover, this study enriches the extant IC and ILs literature focusing on time, a variable that is generally assumed to be a natural unchangeable phenomenon that does not deserve attention. In particular, the findings highlight the different behaviours and perceptions that occur when IC and ILs are looked at through a temporal lens. Finally, this study pinpoints that value creation and value destruction processes seem to have different timings as it takes more time to create value than to destroy it.Originality/value: – In comparison to previous studies, this study does not focus on the positive and negative effects of IC separately, but combines the two issues, also comparing the value creation and the value destruction processes in order to offer a complete picture. Moreover, it adopts a temporal lens, which has been applied only with reference to IC but not to ILs as well. Finally, while the extant literature on ILs tends to investigate them from a theoretical perspective and adopting a static approach, this research investigates ILs empirically from a dynamic perspective.

Purpose: The aim of this paper is to understand how many and what intangible assets firms from two different contexts disclose in order to comprehend whether an accounting harmonization is actually reached in practice and what are the eventual hurdles to surmount in order to reach it.Design/methodology/approach: A qualitative and quantitative analysis of the purchase analyses disclosed by the Swedish and Italian listed companies in their financial statements refering to the first year of application of the IFRS3 is conducted.Findings: The main findings are the following. First, firms do not disclose intangible assets in the same way. Second, contracts become a useful tool to make it possible to account for IC. Third, the disclosure of labels shows a variety. Fourth, differences in behavior are seen.Research limitations/implications: The main limitation is that only a sample of firms (the listed ones in the SSE and MTA/MTAX) that apply IFRS3 is investigated. The main implication is that the disclosing of IC in financial statements is problematic and makes harmonization difficult to achieve. The empirical deepening of these two conclusions represents opportunities for future researchers.Originality/value: The research is an investigation of the first year of application of a new accounting principle from an inter‐country comparison considering it as an opportunity to disclose more IC and consequently to contribute to the debate about how and what IC should be disclosed.