Analysis of maximization strategy intangible assets through the speed of innovation on knowledge-driven business performance improvement

I Gusti Ayu Purnamawati; Jie, Ferry; Puah, Chin-Hong; Yuniarta, Gede Adi Article Analysis of maximization strategy intangible assets through the speed of innovation on knowledge-driven business performance improvement Economies Provided in Cooperation with: MDPI – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Basel Suggested Citation: I Gusti Ayu Purnamawati; Jie, Ferry; Puah, Chin-Hong; Yuniarta, Gede Adi (2022) : Analysis of maximization strategy intangible assets through the speed of innovation on knowledgedriven business performance improvement, Economies, ISSN 2227-7099, MDPI, Basel, Vol. 10, Iss. 6, pp. 1-20, https://doi.org/10.3390/economies10060149 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/328449 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Citation: Purnamawati, I Gusti Ayu, Ferry Jie, Puah Chin Hong, and Gede Adi Yuniarta. 2022. Analysis of Maximization Strategy Intangible Assets through the Speed of Innovation on Knowledge-Driven Business Performance Improvement. Economies 10: 149. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/economies10060149 Academic Editor: Nick Drydakis Received: 2 May 2022 Accepted: 10 June 2022 Published: 16 June 2022 Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). economies Article Analysis of Maximization Strategy Intangible Assets through the Speed of Innovation on Knowledge-Driven Business Performance Improvement I Gusti Ayu Purnamawati 1,* , Ferry Jie 2, Puah Chin Hong 3and Gede Adi Yuniarta 1 1Faculty of Economics, Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha, Singaraja 81116, Indonesia; [email protected] 2School of Business and Law, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, WA 6027, Australia; [email protected] 3Faculty of Economics and Business, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, Kota Samarahan 94300, Malaysia; [email protected] *Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: This study aims to determine the effect of human capital, structural capital, and consumer capital on financial performance and moderate the speed of innovation. The type of research used in the study is quantitative—data collection techniques in distributing questionnaires measured using a Likert scale. The sampling technique used was random sampling and was determined by the slovin formula. The population in this study was MSMEs in Buleleng Regency, and the samples used in this study amounted to 392 MSMEs. Data or statistical analysis techniques in the study were considered using the Structural Equation Model with WarpPLS 5.0 software modelling. The results show that the technology and commitment variables have no significant effect on the development of religious ecotourism villages. In contrast, cultural changes significantly impact the development of religious ecotourism villages. This study uses the speed of innovation as a moderating variable, the speed of innovation is one of the essential things for MSMEs to improve financial performance. The speed of innovation supports intellectual capital, which is currently focused on knowledge-driven business to create a competitive advantage. Keywords: intellectual capital; thespeed of innovation; financial performance 1. Introduction Financial performance can provide a tangible form in assessing whether a company is growing and developing well or not to determine the company’s viability. Changes in the company’s growth base from labor-based to knowledge-based lead to knowledge management that improves performance (Suseno and Pinnington 2017). Companies compete by running a knowledge-based business to use the available resources efficiently and economically. Almost all companies now in their management develop knowledge-based business performance, which considers current assets and fixed assets as not a differentiator for competitive advantage (Nikolaou 2019). Competitive advantage in today’s companies can be seen based on the knowledge and skills possessed by employees. To attract investors, the market value becomes the dominant value higher than the book value. This causes intellectual capital to be the capital that is most considered an intangible asset but can produce quality financial performance (Osinski et al. 2017). This intangible asset is not seen in traditional financial reporting, which only measures financial assets in the short term (Zambon 2017). In large companies, intangible assets have been presented and become a measurement of reporting to stakeholders and evaluating internally. In knowledge-based business, Hashim et al. (2015) said that high-quality resources are a priority for developed countries. Economies 2022,10, 149. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies10060149 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/economies Economies 2022,10, 149 2 of 20 These resources in the company are realized in intellectual capital; three capitals include human capital concerning the knowledge, skills, and experience each employee brings in carrying out the company’s operational activities (Kianto et al. 2017). Structural capital covers non-human resources in an organization such as databases, organizational charts, procedures, administrative processes, strategies, and everything of high value to the organization (Hejazi et al. 2016). The third capital is consumer capital by having knowledge in marketing activities and then establishing relationships with consumers and being a determinant in increasing market value (Harmeling et al. 2017). Human capital describes what an employee brings into a company so that the company’s market value increases; structural capital describes how employees are connected within the company and how and when the employee leaves the company. Consumer capital describes how the company relates to external stakeholders (Dženopoljac et al. 2016). So human capital includes professional competence, employee motivation, and ability in leadership. In contrast, structural capital includes collaboration with internal parties, understanding of IT and management tools and optimally in corporate culture, and consumer capital refers to the relationship between partners, consumers, and suppliers. as well as investors who have an overall effect on intangible assets (Wataya and Shaw 2019). Management can define, classify, assign, report and manage intangible assets in the company. These assets are the basis for claiming rights to future benefits that affect the creation of quality market value. Its development and growth require competitiveness to generate profits; it is stated that human capital is the most complex factor in developing competitive advantage (Ployhart et al. 2014). However, the total cost of labor in various companies is larger than the cost of maintaining production and operations. These costs are different for each company, whether related to industry, goods or services. According to (Fathi et al. 2013), market value in a company is created based on intellectual capital, namely human capital, structural capital, and consumer capitalism, where the efficiency of the measured value is on the company’s intangible and tangible assets. Human capital is a genetic inheritance that includes education, training and experience, and business life. When companies can treat employees as well as possible, it impacts profits, and of course, this capital supports structural capital and consumer capital (Dumay et al. 2020). Structural capital in the company is the knowledge capable of fulfilling the company’s activity processes and can support a high level of intellectuality (Komnenic and Pokrajˇci´c 2012). However, when an organization has poor procedures and systems, it cannot achieve optimal performance and its potential is not utilized optimally. (Aghamirian et al. 2015) Consumer capital becomes potential in organizations, whereas knowledge already exists in the organization in establishing relationships with consumers, suppliers, competitors and the government. The better the relationship, the more excellent the opportunity for companies to learn from consumers and suppliers (Maharani and Fuad 2020). These three capitals are indispensable in improving a company’s performance. The current performance of MSME companies for the government can support the Indonesian economy (Hadiyati 2015), but MSME actors still feel some obstacles. The obstacles included here are both financial and non-financial. Economic barriers include the still weak MSMEs in the availability of funds, limited knowledge in managing finances, the lack of a systematic approach to MSME funding, and the lack of information obtained in seeking bank credit or operating costs that are still too high (Irjayanti and Azis 2012). Meanwhile, non-financial barriers include a lack of knowledge of the production aspects of MSMEs. They still use traditional technology, lack maximum quality control and product competitiveness, have not maximized innovation and creativity, have not been able to keep up with environmental changes, and are still weak in identifying marketing targets (Jovanovski et al. 2019). The product or service being marketed is not yet targeted at the needs or wants of the market. In addition, the problem that often occurs is that products circulating from neighbouring countries have product prices that are much cheaper with the Economies 2022,10, 149 3 of 20 same quality, causing heavy competitiveness for local MSMEs. Both the lack of knowledge and skills possessed by MSME actors make the financial performance of MSMEs less than optimal, where their business is not productive, inefficient or ineffective (Casalino et al. 2014). MSMEs must be able to develop their potential and build a competitive advantage. The maximum financial performance obtained by MSMEs is based on intellectual capital that can be appropriately managed and accompanied by the speed of innovation so that MSMEs can run sustainably. The whole world has indeed felt the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, including Indonesia where what was supposed the most was the weakening of people’s purchasing power due to workers who lost a lot of work (Affandi et al. 2020). The perpetrators of MSMEs certainly felt a reasonably significant impact, and some even went bankrupt. It is a formidable challenge for MSME actors, who were initially able to survive, and must innovate quickly (Hamdani and Wirawan 2012). The speed of innovation for MSME actors is significant to advancing their business. After the pandemic, MSMEs must rise to improve the Indonesian economy (Reardon et al. 2021). Indonesia is currently the largest market in Southeast Asia for agriculture and consumer goods; even the value of online sales transactions or e-commerce, which is growing more and more, is becoming the largest in ASEAN. 2. Methodology 2.1. Financial Performance The stakeholder theory by R. Edward Freeman in 1984 stated that the existence of a company is strongly influenced by stakeholder support for the company (Dawkins 2014). Stakeholder power is seen as control over company resources (Miller et al. 2014). The higher the authority and attention given by the company to stakeholders, the stronger the relationship between the two parties (Lentjušenkova and Lapina 2016). Stakeholders can also influence management but must still see how stakeholder control functions over the company’s resources (Beringer et al. 2013;James 2013). The ResourceBased View theory by Wernerfelt in 1984 focuses on significant company resources and capabilities as the basis for competitiveness and operational performance (Leonidou et al. 2017;Tehseen and Sajilan 2016;Barney and Mackey 2016). To achieve a competitive advantage, companies can utilize and develop sources of company capital, one of which is intellectual capital, which means using strategic assets in the form of intangible assets (Wijaya and Suasih 2020). This means that this theory views the company as having different assets, capabilities, experience, and organizational culture to give the company a sustainable competitive advantage. Financial performance as a series of operational activities that focus on finance within a certain period is reported in financial statements, including income statements, changes in capital, balance sheets, cash flows and notes to financial statements (Abuzayed 2012), (Przychodzen and Przychodzen 2015). Financial performance in its measurement looks at implementation, financing and strategic decisions (Churet and Eccles 2014). Analyzing the financial performance of a company aims to find weaknesses. It can determine reliable strengths in financial performance so that they can make critical decisions for the company in the future (Revelli and Viviani 2015). Financial performance measurement by analyzing financial statements helps evaluate performance to improve it. (Teeratansirikool et al. 2013) Achievement of performance depends on the management, where every decision taken positively or negatively impacts financial performance. Economies 2022,10, 149 4 of 20 2.2. Human Capital The characteristics of human capital that are considered the most important in creating a relevant performance in organizations are education, knowledge and experience (Cherkesova et al. 2016). Teaching, learning gained, and previous experiences lead to innovative and creative discoveries to support the progress of operational activities, and implementing structural aspects helps achieve quality and success. Human capital is an investment in a company by providing education and training for its employees to improve employees’ knowledge, skills, and competencies to maximize the productivity and output of a company (Malaolu and Ogbuabor 2013;Wright et al. 2014). These resources are essential for economic productivity, and skills are enhanced through education and experience. Human capital is divided based on competencies, namely knowledge, skills, and talents possessed by employees and attitudes, namely the willingness of employees to use abilities in providing a company benefits (Iwamoto and Suzuki 2019). Human capital is one of the intangible assets of the company where intelligence, ability, creativity and innovation, as well as the experience possessed by all employees, can support the sustainability of the company, so that human capital is declared to be the main stakeholder in the company (Nuryani et al. 2018). Human capital is part of intellectual capital where companies employ employees who prioritize mindsets rather than physical ones to deal with technological developments (Sima et al. 2020). Investment in improving employees is expected to have a positive impact both in the short and long term of the company. As a form of an intangible asset, human capital is expected to create future economic value in the company by increasing employee competence and organizational ability (Silva et al. 2019). This illustrates how the quality of a company’s workforce, the best quality, is beneficial for investors to assess efficiency and predict future profitability and company productivity (Yusuf 2013). 2.3. Structural Capital Structural capital is a concept or system created by employees but owned within the company’s scope. In companies based on a combination of internal structures that can improve the development process, establish initiatives, and improve technology, the structural capital also increases (Ling 2013). Structural capital includes non-human resources within the company, which have databases, organizational structures, organizational culture, strategies or other high value. Structural capital functions as leverage in company growth based on rules, databases, and corporate culture (Gogan et al. 2015). Structural capital includes the things in the company to be organized and integrated; this capital becomes the supporting infrastructure for performing well (Paunovi´c 2021). Structural capital is a unique approach to carrying out operational activities because other competitors can hardly imitate it. By investing in structural capital, companies can improve their work processes so that services and quality of production and operational activities can be more efficient and effective (Aramburu et al. 2013). Structural capital in the company can produce high quality and reduce operating costs to lead to successful operational performance (Matos et al. 2017). This capital can direct to put aside unnecessary things in the process of creating value, helping achieve employee productivity and increasing income. 2.4. Consumer Capital Consumer capital grows based on trust, commitment, norms, and interactive relationships between companies and stakeholders (Fisher 2019). Consumer capital is a facility for exchanging knowledge, learning and cooperation so that they can find ways to solve problems. This capital allows companies to develop good relationships with partners or customers so that organizations can learn from the experiences of others (Archer-Brown and Kietzmann 2018). Without good consumer capital, a company has difficulty interacting with its partners. Consumer capital embodies how continuous communication is applied by companies in serving external parties to add market value. Consumer capital has market share characteristics, customer retention, and profits from consumers (Kirmaci 2012). Man- Economies 2022,10, 149 5 of 20 aged consumer capital is expected to overcome the worst conditions because the company can find out who its customers are. Without consumer capital, it is impossible to achieve market value and performance. Consumer capital is linked to the company’s ability to have quality relationships with its clients and form a company’s external business network, such as communicating with consumers and suppliers and having a reputation and brand (Jalali et al. 2014;Bagher Taghieh et al. 2013). Consumer capital is a relationship that companies must foster in running a business that includes consumers and suppliers. Consumer capital is a relational value between companies and other people, including consumer satisfaction, durability, reputation, suppliers, investors, government and business networks and other stakeholders (Isanzu 2015). 2.5. Speed of Innovation Innovation in the economic aspect means introducing new goods or services that customers do not know about or unique qualities of an item, introducing new production methods, or opening new markets (Snyder et al. 2016). Innovation is the most crucial factor in MSMEs to improve operational performance (Kuncoro and Suriani 2018). These three things are significant to avoid failures such as inappropriate strategies, non-innovative product designs, and costs incurred for product innovations that are too high or unable to compete with others (Lendel and Varmus 2014). The speed of innovation is expressed as the time required by the company from the concept and process to offering the new product to the market (Wang and Wang 2012). The speed of innovation has a reason as an innovation strategy, namely the result of the speed of innovation making superior new products to affect the company’s performance (Hecker and Ganter 2013). The speed of innovation provides a sustainable competitive advantage, and intense competition and rapid technological developments make the pressure to innovate faster. A company’s speed in innovating is very much needed, especially MSMEs, where MSME actors expect their business to survive and develop (Akman and Yilmaz 2019). Innovation is the main supporting factor in a company’s success by looking at the basic innovation dimensions, including products, processes, marketing, and organization. A clear understanding of which direction to take in realizing innovation significantly assists a company in prioritizing market strategies. The speed of innovation is essential in competitive competition (Casadesus-Masanell and Zhu 2013). The ability to develop and launch innovative products quickly before being preceded by competitors is the right step for the key to the success of a company competing in the advanced technology industry. According to (Ngari and Muiruri 2014), in his research, the application of financial innovation has a significant effect on financial performance. 3. Results The outer model is used to test the validity and reliability of a research instrument (Hair et al. 2014). 3.1. The Effect of Human Capital on Improving Financial Performance In employees, there is human capital with the attitudes, competencies, knowledge and skills, innovation, creativity and experience needed in an organization or company to achieve a target (Campbell et al. 2012). Companies realize that when they invest in their employees, they can easily enjoy better operational performance, which indirectly leads to increased financial performance (Wang et al. 2014). (Joshi et al. 2013) states that the existence of human capital in a company provides benefits, namely the loss of the threat of opportunism, the creation of synergies, reducing uncertainty, control and protection of assets, and the ability to access and follow the latest technological developments (Bendickson and Chandler 2017). Economies 2022,10, 149 6 of 20 Human capital is needed to increase capabilities and maintain a competitive advantage to support sustainable investment and a knowledge-based economy (Chatterjee 2016). This capital is one of the differentiating factors for performance between companies that can bring economic value to the company. Increasing human capital internally can be performed by providing training and development programs and providing high-level knowledge and skills in facing the job competition market (Scafarto and Dimitropoulos 2018). According to Ogunyomi and Bruning (2016), human capital refers more to education, training, and other developments in improving employees’ skills, knowledge, values, and social assets, resulting in employee satisfaction and indirectly affecting the company’s financial performance. Nimtrakoon (2015) also states that the impact of human capital efficiency consistently affects financial performance. Hypothesis 1 (H1). Human capital affects improving financial performance. 3.2. The Effect of Structural Capital on Improving Financial Performance Structural capital influences financial performance. High structural capital certainly impacts efficiency in carrying out the production process and can reduce production costs. It increases company profits that affect assets (Yong et al. 2020). Good organizational management certainly impacts the creation of competitive advantage by expanding the company’s capabilities. The existence of a structure that supports employees to produce intellectual rules and corporate culture is applied to provide optimal business performance (Nejati 2016). Structural capital is a strategic intangible asset in an organization which includes: organizational culture, procedures, information systems, hardware and software, databases, patents, copyrights, etc. When the organization strongly supports structural capital by fostering a culture of innovation and organizational commitment and involving top to bottom management, it creates a performance advantage, which means structural capital creates corporate value (Felício et al. 2014). Research conducted by Babai et al. (2016) shows that structural capital shows a company’s ability to fulfil company processes and structures in supporting employee efforts to produce operational performance, especially optimal financial performance, for example, the company’s operational system, organizational culture, organizational structure or technology system. According to research conducted by Thiagarajan and Baul (2014), structural capital becomes a means of infrastructure for employees to work optimally. When employees have a high intellectual level but the company’s system is terrible, intellectual capital and financial performance are not able to be achieved optimally. Hypothesis 2 (H2). Structural capital affects improving financial performance. 3.3. The Effect of Consumer Capital on Improving Financial Performance Consumer capital is stated to influence financial performance; where consumer capital gets better and more competitive, it will affect maximum sales and use capital more efficiently to improve company performance (Ranani and Bijani 2014). Increased sales on consumer capital is due to a harmonious relationship between the company and its partners, such as quality and reliable suppliers, loyal and consistently satisfied customers with the services provided by the company, as well as good relations between the company and the government and the surrounding community (Hashemnia et al. 2014). Consumer capital is also external because it consists of relationships with outside parties and a network based on company satisfaction and loyalty (Deniswara et al. 2019). This means that this capital is a company’s ability to meet consumer demand. When the organizational structure is reasonable, skilled employees providing quality services improve performance (Adnan et al. 2013). In consumer capital, the organization must determine the control and where its business is and how many chains to build for various people. Expanding the organization’s business value chain is essential and pays attention to costs, risk mitigation, managerial decisions and the exploitation of the economic scope that impacts performance (Wuttke Economies 2022,10, 149 7 of 20 et al. 2013). The benefits of empowering consumer capital are improving coordination, having interaction with consumers and suppliers, having the opportunity to create an idea or product differentiation and having control. Hypothesis 3 (H3). Consumer capital affects improving financial performance. 3.4. Speed of Innovation Moderates the Effect of Human Capital on Improving Financial Performance When creating innovation, knowledge and skills are needed to impact the product on the relationship between customers and company competitors (Meihami and Meihami 2014;Budi 2019). This indirectly indicates that the role of human capital is significant and related to increasing the productivity of MSMEs. Innovation decisions are made quickly and accurately based on environmental and external analysis. As MSME actors can speed up innovation, human capital must be accompanied by training in developing their skills; besides, they can also add insight to their business from financial and nonfinancial aspects (Agostini et al. 2017). With sufficiently mature knowledge and skills, and experience in building a business, the possibility of failure can be avoided and become a competitive advantage in the target market (Omotayo 2015). The performance of MSMEs can provide optimal results. Research by Wang et al. (2018) and Leitner (2018) showed that the speed and quality of innovation fully mediate the impact of human capital on financial performance. Hypothesis 4 (H4). Speed of Innovation moderates the effect of human capital on improving financial performance. 3.5. Speed of Innovation Moderates the Effect of Structural Capital on Improving Financial Performance Structural capital reflects non-human resources involved in organization, such as values, business processes, and behavior patterns. This capital facilitates the creation of innovation with information retrieval, retrieval, storage, processing, and analysis using technology systems (Wang et al. 2016). It means that structural capital is used to incorporate knowledge in a company so that there are acceptable standards to avoid conflicts due to changes in the realization of innovation (Wang et al. 2014). Innovation planning and decision-making become more productive and efficient when the capital structure is effective. It makes it faster to satisfy customer needs based on new products or services developed by the company (Costa et al. 2014). The existence of structural capital makes it easy to increase acquisitions, share knowledge, and build corporate culture. In the end, it can support the speed of innovation, fulfill process facilities and collaboration in developing innovations to improve financial performance (Soo et al. 2017;Ndubisi et al. 2015;Hartono and Halim 2014;Lestari et al. 2020). The speed of innovation is successful in improving the financial performance of MSMEs. Optimization is inseparable from the system and structure built by MSME actors in their business. These efforts include: the use of sophisticated technology, keeping up with the rapidly changing environment, optimally applied organizational culture, and the ability to adapt to processes. Innovative productivity becomes added value in the world market, achieving status by producing quality goods or services. Hypothesis 5 (H5). Speed of Innovation moderates the effect of structural capital on improving financial performance. Economies 2022,10, 149 8 of 20 3.6. Speed of Innovation Moderates the Effect of Consumer Capital on Improving Financial Performance To achieving satisfactory innovation results, a company utilizes internal resources, science and technology, and external stakeholders’ capabilities. Consumer capital forms an atmosphere of communication and provides feedback so that it is faster to develop the innovation process (Ungerman et al. 2018). Consumer capital embodies the company’s solidarity with stakeholders, thereby creating an opportunity. Companies involve customers or suppliers, thus encouraging continuous innovation (Kianto et al. 2017). Activities in developing new products, work processes and quality, and services in the future lead to better company financial performance. The speed of innovation is very important for MSMEs in introducing and marketing new products through communication and establishing relationships with customers (Al-Ansari et al. 2013). The relationship fostered with customers, especially loyal customers, is considered to have a significant impact on responding to the introduction of innovations created by MSME actors. Here, MSME actors take a communication approach while introducing new products to customers and then allowing them to respond; if there are still some shortcomings, they can be corrected immediately (Aksoy 2017). In addition, this can build a more comprehensive network of cooperation with the government or other business partners. MSMEs can move more efficiently and effectively in procuring resources, producing, and even marketing to take advantage of business opportunities with other parties (Distanont and Khongmalai 2020). It is the right step in making decisions to innovate to provide operational and financial performance for MSMEs. Hypothesis 6 (H6). Speed of Innovation moderates the effect of consumer capital on improving financial performance. The research used is a quantitative approach, and a particular population or sample was researched. The data collection technique was distributing questionnaires to measure five variables: human capital, structural capital, consumer capital, innovation speed, and financial performance. The questionnaire used a Likert scale from 1to 5 points. Summary of sample presentation as presented in Table 1. The sampling technique used was a random sampling technique determined by the solving formula. The population was MSMEs in the Buleleng Regency, which were recorded at the Disdagprinkopumkm.go.id in 2020 with a total of 54,489 MSME actors with a margin of error of 5%, so the sample obtained was 401 MSME actors. However, only 392 samples were in this study because nine questionnaires were not returned. Data or statistical analysis techniques in the study were considered using the Structural Equation Model (SEM) with WarpPLS 5.0 software modelling. Variable measurements are summarized in the presentation of Table 2. Table 1. Summary of sample presentation. Sample Criteria Number of Observations Total questionnaires distributed 401 Complete questionnaires that were not returned (9) Total returned questionnaires 392 Complete questionnaires that cannot be processed 0 Total questionnaires that can be processed 392 Economies 2022,10, 149 15 of 20 who found that consumer capital does not always provide financial benefits for MSME actors. This is because customers do not all have a high level of loyalty, especially new customers (Li 2014); sometimes, these customers become a threat to SMEs, where they prefer to compare products with other competitors. Especially for the innovations created by MSME actors, sometimes having the speed of innovation can be an opportunity for other competitors to follow and even exceed the products that have been made (Mehdivand et al. 2012;Campo et al. 2014). So, here, it is related to which MSME actors can respond as quickly as possible but still follow the needs of outsiders, especially customers. So MSME actors who have the speed of innovation then take advantage of consumer capital, but it is not to the needs of outsiders; of course, this has an impact on the financial performance expected by MSME actors. 5. Conclusions The study results, using five variables, show shown differences between the research results and the hypothesis in this study. Developments in Industry 4.0 have caused the business environment to become increasingly uncertain. It will also affect the decline in the national economy, so companies are expected to need to make quick and steady management decisions to maintain their sustainability and strengthen their position in the market supported by the government. Currently, most of the business world has adopted a knowledge-based business that emphasizes using the intellectual capital owned by the company, including human capital, structural capital, and consumer capital. Intellectual capital is also one of the important assets in the success and survival of MSMEs. For the government, micro, small, and medium enterprises are an essential part of the backbone of the Indonesian economy. To maintain the sustainability of MSMEs, a competitive advantage is needed by utilizing their intellectual capital. Intellectual capital is an intangible asset that helps create the best product and service innovations to increase the performance of MSMEs. The Resource-Based View (RBV) theory states that a competitive advantage is achieved if a company can use and maximize its resources. The RBV theory is considered appropriate to describe the company’s internal strength, which is carried out through intellectual capital, which impacts financial performance. The limitations of this study are that the variables used are only three independent variables: human, structural capital, and consumer capital, as well as the moderating variable, namely the speed of innovation, so that it still does not show a role in improving financial performance. They represent MSMEs outside the Buleleng Regency area. Author Contributions: Conceptualization, methodology, writing—original draft, I.G.A.P.; data curation, formal analysis, supervision, F.J.; writing—review and editing, P.C.H.; resources, investigation, visualization, G.A.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research received no external funding. Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable. Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable. Data Availability Statement: Not applicable. Acknowledgments: Thank you for the support provided by the Institute for Research and Community Service Ganesha University of Education, and the Ministry of Research Technology, National Innovation Research Agency, Republic of Indonesia. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. References Abuzayed, Bana. 2012. Working capital management and firms’ performance in emerging markets: The case of Jordan. International Journal of Managerial Finance 8: 155–79. [CrossRef] Adnan, Nur Syuhada, Amrizah Kamaluddi, and Nawal Kasim. 2013. Intellectual Capital in Religious Organisations: Malaysian Zakat Institutions Perspective. Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research 16: 368–77. [CrossRef] Economies 2022,10, 149 16 of 20 Affandi, Azhar, Akhmad Sobarna Sarwani, Heri Erlangga, Ade Onny Siagian, Agus Purwanto, Aidil Amin Effendy, and G. Juhaeri. 2020. Optimization of MSME empowerment in facing competition in the global market during the COVID-19 pandemic. Systematic Reviews in Pharmacy 11: 1506–15. Aghamirian, Bahman, Behrouz Dorri, and Babak Aghamirian. 2015. Customer knowledge management application in gaining organization’s competitive advantage in electronic commerce. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research 10: 63–78. [CrossRef] Agostini, Lara, Anna Nosella, and Roberto Filippini. 2017. Does intellectual capital allow improving innovation performance? A quantitative analysis in the SME context. Journal of Intellectual Capital 18: 400–18. [CrossRef] Akman, Gül¸sen, and Cengiz Yilmaz. 2019. Innovative capability, innovation strategy and market orientation: An empirical analysis in Turkish software industry. In Managing Innovation: What Do We Know About Innovation Success Factors? Singapore: World Scientific Publishing, pp. 139–81. Aksoy, Hasan. 2017. How do innovation culture, marketing innovation and product innovation affect the market performance of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Technology in Society 51: 133–41. [CrossRef] Al-Ansari, Yahya, Marwan Altalib, and Muna Sardoh. 2013. Technology orientation, innovation and business performance: A study of Dubai SMEs. The International Technology Management Review 3: 1–11. [CrossRef] Alipour, Mohammad. 2012. The effect of intellectual capital on firm performance: An investigation of Iran insurance companies. Measuring Business Excellence 16: 53–66. [CrossRef] Alrowwad, Ala’aldin, and Shadi Habis Abualoush. 2020. Innovation and intellectual capital as intermediary variables among transformational leadership, transactional leadership, and organizational performance. Journal of Management Development 39: 196–222. [CrossRef] Aramburu, Nekane, Josune Sáenz, and Carlos Blanco. 2013. Structural capital, innovation capability, and company performance in technology-based colombian firms. Proceedings of the International Conference on Intellectual Capital, Knowledge Management & Organizational Learning 2: 20–29. Archer-Brown, Chris, and Jan Kietzmann. 2018. Strategic knowledge management and enterprise social media. Journal of Knowledge Management 22: 1288–309. [CrossRef] Aryanto, Riza, Avanti Fontana, and Adi Zakaria Afiff. 2015. Strategic human resource management, innovation capability and performance: An empirical study in Indonesia software industry. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 211: 874–79. [CrossRef] Babai, Fatemeh, Rogieh Niazy, Maryam Talebi, and Jamal Mohamade. 2016. Intellectual Capital Measuring and Reporting. Bull. Sociétét R. Des. Sci. Liege 85: 1063–69. [CrossRef] Bagher Taghieh, Mohammad, Sedigheh Taghieh, and Zahra Poorzamani. 2013. The effects of relational capital (customer) on the market value and financial performance. European Online Journal of Natural and Social Sciences 2: 207–11. Baporikar, Neeta, Geoffrey Nambira, and Geroldine Gomxos. 2016. Exploring factors hindering SMEs’ growth: Evidence from Nambia. Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management 7: 190–211. [CrossRef] Barney, Jay B., and Alison Mackey. 2016. Text and metatext in the resource-based view. Human Resource Management Journal 26: 369–78. [CrossRef] Bayraktaroglu, Ayse Elvan, Fethi Calisir, and Murat Baskak. 2019. Intellectual capital and firm performance: An extended VAIC model. Journal of Intellectual Capital 20: 406–25. [CrossRef] Bendickson, Joshua S., and Timothy D. Chandler. 2017. Operational performance: The mediator between human capital developmental programs and financial performance. Journal of Business Research 94: 162–71. [CrossRef] Beringer, Claus, Daniel Jonas, and Alexander Kock. 2013. Behavior of internal stakeholders in project portfolio management and its impact on success. International Journal of Project Management 31: 830–46. [CrossRef] Budi, Ichsan Setiyo. 2019. The Effect of Intellectual Capital and Islamic Corporate Governance on Islamic Social Reporting Disclosure with Financial Performance Mediation. The Winners 20: 95–110. [CrossRef] Callarisa, Luis, Javier Sánchez García, John Cardiff, and Alexandra Roshchina. 2012. Harnessing social media platforms to measure customer-based hotel brand equity. Tourism Management Perspectives 4: 73–79. [CrossRef] Campbell, Benjamin A., Russell Coff, and David Kryscynski. 2012. Rethinking sustained competitive advantage from human capital. The Academy of Management Review (AMR) 37: 376–95. [CrossRef] Campo, Sara, Ana M. Diaz, and María J. Yagüe. 2014. Hotel innovation and performance in times of crisis. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 26: 1292–311. [CrossRef] Casadesus-Masanell, Ramon, and Feng Zhu. 2013. Business model innovation and competitive imitation: The case of sponsor-based business models. Strategic Management Journal 34: 464–82. [CrossRef] Casalino, Nunzio, Stefan Ivanov, and Toshko Nenov. 2014. Innovation’s governance and investments for enhancing competitiveness of manufacturing SMEs. Law and Economics Yearly Review Journal 3: 72–97. Chahal, Hardeep, and Purnima Bakshi. 2015. Examining intellectual capital and competitive advantage relationship: Role of innovation and organizational learning. International Journal of Bank Marketing 33: 376–99. [CrossRef] Chatterjee, Joydeep. 2016. Strategy, human capital investments, business-domain capabilities, and performance: A study in the global software services industry. Strategic Management Journal 38: 588–608. [CrossRef] Economies 2022,10, 149 17 of 20 Cherkesova, Elvira Y., Evgeniya A. Breusova, Ekaterina P. Savchishkina, and Nataliya E. Demidova. 2016. Competitiveness of the human capital as strategic resource of innovational economy functioning. Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economic 7: 1662–67. Churet, Cecile, and Robert G. Eccles. 2014. Integrated reporting, quality of management, and financial performance. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance 26: 56–64. [CrossRef] Costa, Ricardo V., Carlos Fernández-Jardon Fernández, and Pedro Figueroa Dorrego. 2014. Critical elements for product innovation at Portuguese innovative SMEs: An intellectual capital perspective. Knowledge Management Research and Practice 12: 322–38. [CrossRef] Crane, Lesley, and Nick Bontis. 2014. Trouble with tacit: Developing a new perspective and approach. Journal of Knowledge Management 18: 1127–40. [CrossRef] Davcik, Nebojsa S. 2014. The use and misuse of structural equation modeling in management research: A review and critique. Journal of Advances in Management Research 11: 47–81. [CrossRef] Dawkins, Cedric E. 2014. The principle of good faith: Toward substantive stakeholder engagement. Journal of Business Ethics 121: 283–95. [CrossRef] Deniswara, Kevin, Ratu Marwaah Firhatil Uyuun, Ang Swat Lin Lindawati, and Willnaldo Willnaldo. 2019. Intellectual Capital Effect, Financial Performance, and Firm Value: An Empirical Evidence from Real Estate Firm, in Indonesia. The Winners 20: 49–60. [CrossRef] Distanont, Anyanitha, and Orapan Khongmalai. 2020. The role of innovation in creating a competitive advantage. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences 41: 15–21. [CrossRef] Dumay, John, James Guthrie, and Jim Rooney. 2020. Being critical about intellectual capital accounting in 2020: An overview. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 70: 1–9. [CrossRef] Dženopoljac, Vladimir, Stevo Janoševic, and Nick Bontis. 2016. Intellectual capital and financial performance in the Serbian ICT industry. Journal of Intellectual Capital 17: 373–96. [CrossRef] Engel, Jerome S. 2015. Global clusters of innovation: Lessons from Silicon Valley. California Management Review 57: 36–65. [CrossRef] Fathi, Saeed, Shekoofeh Farahmand, and Mahnaz Khorasani. 2013. Impact of Intellectual Capital on Financial Performance. International Journal of Academic Research in Economics and Management Sciences 2: 6–17. Felício, Jose Augusto, Eduardo Couto, and Jorge Caiado. 2014. Human capital, social capital and organizational performance. Management Decision 52: 350–64. [CrossRef] Fisher, Greg. 2019. Online communities and firm advantages. Academy of Management Review 44: 279–98. [CrossRef] Frias-Aceituno, JoséV., Lázaro Rodríguez-Ariza, and Isabel M. Garcia-Sánchez. 2014. Explanatory factors of integrated sustainability and financial reporting. Business Strategy and the Environment 23: 56–72. [CrossRef] Gambardella, Alfonso, Claudio Panico, and Giovanni Valentini. 2013. Strategic incentives to human capital. Strategic Management Journal 36: 37–52. [CrossRef] Gogan, Luminita Maria, Dan Cristian Duran, and Anca Draghici. 2015. Structural capital-A proposed measurement model. Procedia Economics and Finance 23: 1139–46. [CrossRef] Hadiyati, Ernani. 2015. Marketing and government policy on MSMEs in Indonesian: A theoretical framework and empirical study. International Journal of Business and Management 10: 128–38. [CrossRef] Hair, Joe F., Jr., Marko Sarstedt, Lucas Hopkins, and Volker G. Kuppelwieser. 2014. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): An emerging tool in business research. European Business Review 26: 106–21. [CrossRef] Hamdani, Jahja, and Christina Wirawan. 2012. Open innovation implementation to sustain Indonesian SMEs. Procedia Economics and Finance 4: 223–33. [CrossRef] Han, Yuqian, and Dayuan Li. 2015. Effects of intellectual capital on innovative performance: The role of knowledge-based dynamic capability. Management Decision 53: 40–56. [CrossRef] Harmeling, Colleen M., Jordan W. Moffett, Mark J. Arnold, and Brad D. Carlson. 2017. Toward a theory of customer engagement marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 45: 312–35. [CrossRef] Hartono, Hendry, and Erwin Halim. 2014. The impact of knowledge management and entrepreneur’s knowledge on innovation and firm performance. The Winners 15: 108–14. [CrossRef] Hashemnia, Shahram, Somayeh Naseri, and S. Mozdabadi. 2014. A strategic Review the Impact of Intellectual Capital Components on Organizational Performance in Sepah Bank Branches throughout Tehran Province. Journal of Educational and Management Studies 4: 46–56. Hashim, Maryam Jameelah, Idris Osman, and Syed Musa Alhabshi. 2015. Effect of Intellectual Capital on Organizational Performance. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 211: 207–14. [CrossRef] Hecker, Achim, and Alois Ganter. 2013. The influence of product market competition on technological and management innovation: Firm-level evidence from a large-scale survey. European Management Review 10: 17–33. [CrossRef] Hejazi, Rezvan, Mehrdad Ghanbari, and Mohammad Alipour. 2016. Intellectual, human and structural capital effects on firm performance as measured by Tobin’s Q. Knowledge and Process Management 23: 259–73. [CrossRef] Irjayanti, Maya, and Anton Mulyono Azis. 2012. Barrier factors and potential solutions for Indonesian SMEs. Procedia Economics and Finance 4: 3–12. [CrossRef] Economies 2022,10, 149 18 of 20 Isanzu, Janeth N. 2015. Impact of Intellectual Capital on Financial Performance of Banks in Tanzania. Journal of International Business Research and Marketing 1: 16–23. [CrossRef] Iwamoto, Hiroki, and Hideo Suzuki. 2019. An empirical study on the relationship of corporate financial performance and human capital concerning corporate social responsibility: Applying SEM and Bayesian SEM. Cogent Business & Management 6: 1–10. [CrossRef] Jalali, Alireza, Mastura Jaafar, and Thurasamy Ramayah. 2014. Entrepreneurial orientation and performance: The interaction effect of customer capital. World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development 10: 48–68. [CrossRef] James, Marianne L. 2013. Sustainability and integrated reporting: Opportunities and strategies for small and midsize companies. The Entrepreneurial Executive 18: 17–27. Joshi, Mahesh, Daryll Cahill, Jasvinder Sidhu, and Monika Kansal. 2013. Intellectual capital and financial performance: An evaluation of the Australian financial sector. Journal of Intellectual Capital 14: 264–85. [CrossRef] Jovanovski, Bojan, Denitsa Seykova, Admira Boshnyaku, and Clemens Fischer. 2019. The impact of industry 4.0 on the competitiveness of SMEs. Industry 4.0 4: 250–55. Kianto, Aino, Josune Sáenz, and Nekane Aramburu. 2017. Knowledge-based human resource management practices, intellectual capital and innovation. Journal of Business Research 81: 11–20. [CrossRef] Kim, Kyoung Yong, Leanne Atwater, Pankaj C. Patel, and James W. Smither. 2016. Multisource feedback, human capital, and the financial performance of organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology 101: 1569–84. [CrossRef] Kim, Taegoo, Woo Gon Kim, Simon Si-Sa Park, Gyehee Lee, and Bonggu Jee. 2012. Intellectual Capital and Business Performance: What Structural Relationships Do They Have in Upper-Upscale Hotels? International Journal of Tourism Research 14: 391–408. [CrossRef] Kirmaci, Sevcan. 2012. Customer relationship management and customer loyalty; a survey in the sector of banking. International Journal of Business and Social Science 3: 1–10. Kock, Ned. 2015. WarpPLS 5.0 User Manual. Laredo: ScriptWarp Systems. Komnenic, Biserka, and Dragana Pokrajˇci´c. 2012. Intellectual capital and corporate performance of MNCs in Serbia. Journal of Intellectual Capital 13: 106–19. [CrossRef] Kuncoro, Wuryanti, and Wa Ode Suriani. 2018. Achieving sustainable competitive advantage through product innovation and market driving. Asia Pacific Management Review 23: 186–92. [CrossRef] Leitner, Karl-Heinz. 2018. Intellectual capital, innovation, and performance: Empirical evidence from SMEs. In Exploiting Intellectual Property to Promote Innovation and Create Value. Singapore: World Scientific, pp. 255–82. Lendel, Viliam, and Michal Varmus. 2014. Evaluation of the innovative business performance. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 129: 504–11. [CrossRef] Lentjušenkova, Oksana, and Inga Lapina. 2016. The transformation of the organization’s intellectual capital: From resource to capital. Journal of Intellectual Capital 17: 610–31. [CrossRef] Leonidou, Leonidas C., Paul Christodoulides, Lida P. Kyrgidou, and Daydanda Palihawadana. 2017. Internal drivers and performance consequences of small firm green business strategy: The moderating role of external forces. Journal of Business Ethics 140: 585–606. [CrossRef] Lestari, Setyani Dwi, Farah Margaretha Leon, Sri Widyastuti, Nora Andira Brabo, and Aditya Halim Perdana Kusuma Putra. 2020. Antecedents and consequences of innovation and business strategy on performance and competitive advantage of SMEs. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business 7: 365–78. [CrossRef] Li, Yina. 2014. Environmental innovation practices and performance: Moderating effect of resource commitment. Journal of Cleaner Production 66: 450–58. [CrossRef] Ling, Ya-Hui. 2013. The influence of intellectual capital on organizational performance—Knowledge management as moderator. Asia Pacific Journal of Management 30: 937–64. [CrossRef] Maharani, Tia, and Khoirul Fuad. 2020. The effect of human capital, structural capital, customer capital, managerial ownership, and leverage toward profitability of company. Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Research 1: 46–62. [CrossRef] Malaolu, Victor, and Jonathan Emenike Ogbuabor. 2013. Training and Manpower Development, Employee Productivity and Organizational Performance in Nigeria: An Empirical Investigation. International Journal of Advances in Management and Economics 2: 163–77. Martin, Bruce C., Jeffrey J. McNally, and Michael J. Kay. 2013. Examining the formation of human capital in entrepreneurship: A meta-analysis of entrepreneurship education outcomes. Journal of Business Venturing 28: 211–24. [CrossRef] Matos, Florinda, Valter Martins Vairinhos, Renata Paola Dameri, and Susanne Durst. 2017. Increasing smart city competitiveness and sustainability through managing structural capital. Journal of Intellectual Capital 18: 693–707. [CrossRef] McGuirk, Helen, Helena Lenihan, and Mark Hart. 2015. Measuring the impact of innovative human capital on small firms’ propensity to innovate. Research Policy 44: 965–76. [CrossRef] Mehdivand, Mohsen, Mohammad Reza Zali, Merhdad Madhoshi, and Asadollah Kordnaeij. 2012. Intellectual capital and nanobusinesses performance: The moderating role of entrepreneurial orientation. European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences 52: 147–62. Meihami, Bahram, and Hussein Meihami. 2014. Knowledge Management a way to gain a competitive advantage in firms (evidence of manufacturing companies). International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences 3: 80–91. [CrossRef] Economies 2022,10, 149 19 of 20 Miller, Kristel, Maura McAdam, and Rodney McAdam. 2014. The changing university business model: A stakeholder perspective. R&D Management 44: 265–87. Murray, Alan, Armando Papa, Benedetta Cuozzo, and Giuseppe Russo. 2016. Evaluating the innovation of the Internet of Things: Empirical evidence from the intellectual capital assessment. Business Process Management Journal 22: 341–56. [CrossRef] Musibah, Anwar Salem, and Wan Sulaiman Bin Wan Yusoff Alfattani. 2014. The mediating effect of financial performance on the relationship between Shariah supervisory board effectiveness, intellectual capital and corporate social responsibility, of Islamic banks in Gulf Cooperation Council countries. Asian Social Science 10: 139–64. [CrossRef] Ndubisi, Nelson Oly, Celine Marie Capel, and Gibson C. Ndubisi. 2015. Innovation strategy and performance of international technology services ventures: The moderating effect of structural autonomy. Journal of Service Management 26: 548–64. [CrossRef] Nejati, Ramin. 2016. Management of intangible assets a value enhancing strategy in knowledge economy. Research Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences 7: 54–60. [CrossRef] Ngari, James Mark Karimi, and James Kamau Muiruri. 2014. Effects of Financial Innovations on the Financial Performance of Commercial Banks in Kenya. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science 4: 51–57. Nikolaou, Ioannis. 2019. A framework to explicate the relationship between CSER and financial performance: An intellectual capital-based approach and knowledge-based view of firm. Journal of the Knowledge Economy 10: 1427–46. [CrossRef] Nimtrakoon, Sirinuch. 2015. The relationship between intellectual capital, firms’ market value and financial performance: Empirical evidence from the ASEAN. Journal of Intellectual Capital 16: 587–618. [CrossRef] Nuryani, Ni Nyoman Juli, Dewa Putu Rida Satrawan, Anak Agung Ngurah Oka Suryadinatha Gorda, and Luh Kadek Budi Martini. 2018. Influence of Human Capital, Social Capital, Economic Capital towards Financial Performance & Corporate Social Responsibility. International Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities 2: 65–76. [CrossRef] Ogunyomi, Paul, and Nealia S. Bruning. 2016. Human resource management and organizational performance of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in Nigeria. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 27: 612–34. [CrossRef] Omotayo, Funmilola Olubunmi. 2015. Knowledge Management as an important tool in Organisational Management: A Review of Literature. Library Philosophy and Practice 1: 1–23. Osinski, Marilei, Paulo Mauricio Selig, Florinda Matos, and Darlan JoséRoman. 2017. Methods of evaluation of intangible assets and intellectual capital. Journal of Intellectual Capital 18: 470–85. [CrossRef] Pasban, Mohammad, and Sadegheh Hosseinzadeh Nojedeh. 2016. A Review of the Role of Human Capital in the Organization. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 230: 249–53. [CrossRef] Paunovi´c, Mihailo. 2021. The impact of human capital on financial performance of entrepreneurial firms in Serbia. Management: Journal of Sustainable Business and Management Solutions in Emerging Economies 26: 29–46. [CrossRef] Ployhart, Robert E. 2012. Personnel selection and the competitive advantage of firms. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology 27: 153–95. Ployhart, Robert E., Anthony J. Nyberg, Greg Reilly, and Mark A. Maltarich. 2014. Human capital is dead; long live human capital resources! Journal of Management 40: 371–98. [CrossRef] Post, Corinne, and Kris Byron. 2015. Women on boards and firm financial performance: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal 58: 1546–71. [CrossRef] Przychodzen, Justyna, and Wojciech Przychodzen. 2015. Relationships between eco-innovation and financial performance–evidence from publicly traded companies in Poland and Hungary. Journal of Cleaner Production 90: 253–63. [CrossRef] Ranani, Hossein Sharifi, and Zivar Bijani. 2014. The Impact of Intellectual Capital on the Financial Performance of Listed Companies in Tehran Stock Exchange. International Journal of Academic Research in Accounting, Finance and Management Sciences 4: 119–27. [CrossRef] Ratnawati, Kusuma. 2020. The influence of financial inclusion on MSMEs’ performance through financial intermediation and access to capital. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics, and Business 7: 205–18. [CrossRef] Reardon, Thomas, Ben Belton, Lenis Saweda O. Liverpool-Tasie, Liang Lu, Chandra S. R. Nuthalapati, Oyinkan Tasie, and David Zilberman. 2021. E-commerce’s fast-tracking diffusion and adaptation in developing countries. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 43: 1243–59. [CrossRef] Revelli, Christophe, and Jean-Laurent Viviani. 2015. Financial performance of socially responsible investing (SRI): What have we learned? A meta-analysis. Business Ethics: A European Review 24: 158–85. [CrossRef] Sardo, Filipe, Zélia Serrasqueiro, and Helena Alves. 2018. On the relationship between intellectual capital and financial performance: A panel data analysis on SME hotels. International Journal of Hospitality Management 75: 67–74. [CrossRef] Scafarto, Vincenzo, and Panagiotis Dimitropoulos. 2018. Human capital and financial performance in professional football: The role of governance mechanisms. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society 18: 289–316. [CrossRef] Shaw, Jason D., Tae-Youn Park, and Eugene Kim. 2013. A resource-based perspective on human capital losses, HRM investments, and organizational performance. Strategic Management Journal 34: 572–89. [CrossRef] Silva, Vander Luiz, João Luiz Kovaleski, and Regina Negri Pagani. 2019. Technology transfer and human capital in the industrial 4.0 scenario: A theoretical study. Future Studies Research Journal: Trends and Strategies 11: 102–22. [CrossRef] Sima, Violeta, Ileana Georgiana Gheorghe, Jonel Subi´c, and Dumitru Nancu. 2020. Influences of the industry 4.0 revolution on the human capital development and consumer behavior: A systematic review. Sustainability 12: 4035. [CrossRef] Economies 2022,10, 149 20 of 20 Snyder, Hannah, Lars Witell, Anders Gustafsson, Paul Fombelle, and Per Kristensson. 2016. Identifying categories of service innovation: A review and synthesis of the literature. Journal of Business Research 69: 2401–8. [CrossRef] Soo, Christine, Amy Wei Tian, Stephen T. T. Teo, and John Cordery. 2017. Intellectual capital-enhancing HR, absorptive capacity, and innovation. Human Resource Management 56: 431–54. [CrossRef] Sumedrea, Silvia. 2013. Intellectual capital and firm performance: A dynamic relationship in crisis time. Procedia Economics and Finance 6: 137–44. [CrossRef] Surya, Batara, Firman Menne, Hernita Sabhan, Seri Suriani, Herminawaty Abubakar, and Muhammad Idris. 2021. Economic growth, increasing productivity of SMEs, and open innovation. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity 7: 20. [CrossRef] Suseno, Yuliani, and Ashly H. Pinnington. 2017. The war for talent: Human capital challenges for professional service firms. Asia Pacific Business Review 23: 205–29. [CrossRef] Sydler, Renato, Stefan Haefliger, and Robert Pruksa. 2014. Measuring intellectual capital with financial figures: Can we predict firm profitability? European Management Journal 32: 244–59. [CrossRef] Teece, David J. 2018. Business models and dynamic capabilities. Long Range Planning 51: 40–49. [CrossRef] Teeratansirikool, Luliya, Sununta Siengthai, Yuosre Badir, and Chotchai Charoenngam. 2013. Competitive strategies and firm performance: The mediating role of performance measurement. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 62: 168–84. [CrossRef] Tehseen, Shehnaz, and Sulaiman Sajilan. 2016. Network competence based on resource-based view and resource dependence theory. International Journal of Trade and Global Markets 9: 60–82. [CrossRef] Thiagarajan, Anthony, and Utpal Baul. 2014. Holistic Intellectual Capital Conceptual Offering for Empirical Research and Business Application. International Journal of Management 3: 31–50. Tzabbar, Daniel, and Jaclyn Margolis. 2017. Beyond the startup stage: The founding team’s human capital, new venture’s stage of life, founder–CEO duality, and breakthrough innovation. Organization Science 28: 857–72. [CrossRef] Ungerman, Otakar, Jaroslava Dedkova, and Katerina Gurinova. 2018. The impact of marketing innovation on the competitiveness of enterprises in the context of industry 4.0. Journal of Competitiveness 10: 132–48. [CrossRef] Wang, Zhining, and Nianxin Wang. 2012. Knowledge sharing, innovation and firm performance. Expert Systems with Applications 39: 8899–908. [CrossRef] Wang, Zhining, Nianxin Wang, and Huigang Liang. 2014. Knowledge sharing, intellectual capital and firm performance. Management Decision 52: 230–58. [CrossRef] Wang, Zhining, Nianxin Wang, Jinwei Cao, and Xinfeng Ye. 2016. The impact of intellectual capital—Knowledge management strategy fit on firm performance. Management Decision 54: 1861–85. [CrossRef] Wang, Zhining, Shaohan Cai, Huigang Liang, Nianxin Wang, and Erwei Xiang. 2018. Intellectual capital and firm performance: The mediating role of innovation speed and quality. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 32: 1222–50. [CrossRef] Wataya, Eiko, and Rajib Shaw. 2019. Measuring the value and the role of soft assets in smart city development. Cities 94: 106–15. [CrossRef] Wijaya, Putu Yudy, and Ni Nyoman Reni Suasih. 2020. The effect of knowledge management on competitive advantage and business performance: A study of silver craft SMEs. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review 8: 105–21. [CrossRef] Wright, Patrick M., Russell Coff, and Thomas P. Moliterno. 2014. Strategic human capital: Crossing the great divide. Journal of Management 40: 353–70. [CrossRef] Wuttke, David A., Constantin Blome, and Michael Henke. 2013. Focusing the financial flow of supply chains: An empirical investigation of financial supply chain management. International Journal of Production Economics 145: 773–89. [CrossRef] Yong, Jing Yi, M.-Y. Yusliza, Charbel Jose Chiappetta Jabbour, and Noor Hazlina Ahmad. 2020. Exploratory cases on the interplay between green human resource management and advanced green manufacturing in light of the Ability-Motivation-Opportunity theory. Journal of Management Development 39: 31–49. [CrossRef] Yusuf, Ismaila. 2013. The Relationship between Human Capital Efficiency and Financial Performance: An Empirical Investigation of Quoted Nigerian Banks. Research Journal of Finance and Accounting 4: 148–54. Zambon, Stefano. 2017. Intangibles and intellectual capital: An overview of the reporting issues and some measurement models. In The Economic Importance of Intangible Assets. London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, pp. 153–83. Zhou, Yu, Ying Hong, and Jun Liu. 2013. Internal commitment or external collaboration? The impact of human resource management systems on firm innovation and performance. Human Resource Management 52: 263–88. [CrossRef]