Intangible-intensive strategy in crisis

From the sample of the Russian companies such significant variables for EVA as qualification of the board of directors (before and during the crisis), earnings per employee (before and after the crisis), citations in the search engines (during and after the crisis), intangible assets (before and during the crisis) and foreign capital in the all crisis related periods were chosen. Significant variables for the MVA are foreign capital employment (before and during the crisis) and intangible assets in the all crisis related periods.

From the sample of European companies such indicators as earnings per employee (before and during the crisis), membership in business associations (during and after the crisis) are significant for the EVA. Such indicators as the qualification of the board of directors (before and after the crisis), presence of corporate university (before and during the crisis), membership in the business associations (all the crisis related periods) and ERP system implementation (before and after the crisis) were chosen.

For the more precise results for investigating effect of the industry, models for the research were built separately for each indicator of the intangible resources for the EVA and MVA in the European and Russian intangible-intensive companies. The model is the initial fixed effect model with the generated variable with effects of the industries. The control variables for the model are the same as for initial model as variable of intangible resource, book value of the assets of the company and company age. For the European companies it was observed seven industries(Construction & Real Estate, Manufacturing, Energy & Chemical , Trade & Related Services, Finance & Insurance, Professional Service, Services) while for Russian it is six industries (Construction & Real Estate, Manufacturing, Energy & Chemical , Trade & Related Services, Finance & Insurance, Services) as it was mentioned in previous sections of the thesis. Manufacturing industry was chosen as the reference category from the industry dummy variables for the model; therefore, the results are compared with the manufacturing industry for the both samples of Russian and European companies.

The results of the fixed effect models with the industry effect for the Russian intangible-intensive companies for the EVA are introduced in the tables below. Tables 18-22 present the industry effect for the significant intangibles for EVA for Russian companies. Table 23 provides the summary of the industry effect of the analyzed significant intangibles for the EVA in Russian companies.

Table 18. The industry effect for the foreign capital employment (EVA) for Russian companies

Interaction effect	Coefficients
Foreign capital employment*construction before crisis	-22.5847 (61.45466)
Foreign capital employment*construction during crisis	-149.3831** (61.60873)
Foreign capital employment *construction after crisis	-30.0229 (60.04314)
Foreign capital employment *energy before crisis	29.44114 (41.75424)
Foreign capital employment *energy during crisis	-138.4208*** (41.65806)
Foreign capital employment *energy after crisis	30.09602 (39.94258)
Foreign capital employment *services before crisis	11.45494 (42.79067)
Foreign capital employment * services during crisis	30.73526 (42.67154)
Foreign capital employment *services after crisis	12.73922 (40.33913)
Foreign capital employment *trade before crisis	-75.28065 (73.32046)
Foreign capital employment * trade during crisis	-72.50763 (73.09855)
Foreign capital employment *trade after crisis	-74.68142 (65.04955)
Foreign capital employment *finance before crisis	0 (not enough data)
Foreign capital employment * finance during crisis	-3821.718*** (128.2374)
Foreign capital employment *finance after crisis	0 (not enough data)

***, **, * Significance level at p<0.01, 0.05, 0.1 respectively

Table 19. The industry effect for the qualification of the board of directors (EVA) for Russian companies

Interaction effect	Coefficients
Qualification of the board of directors*construction before crisis	3.230496 (23.99998)
Qualification of the board of directors*construction during crisis	1.041242 (24.93664)
Qualification of the board of directors*construction after crisis	-2.94353 (21.6752)
Qualification of the board of directors*energy before crisis	6.555477 (19.65958)
Qualification of the board of directors*energy during crisis	-50.5081** (19.5805)
Qualification of the board of directors*energy after crisis	15.72115 (17.56153)
Qualification of the board of directors*services before crisis	-41.33076 (27.07101)
Qualification of the board of directors* services during crisis	-31.95087 (27.47116)
Qualification of the board of directors*services after crisis	-47.60087* (25.41686)
Qualification of the board of directors*trade before crisis	8.440102 (58.84422)
Qualification of the board of directors* trade during crisis	7.277483 (60.05377)
Qualification of the board of directors*trade after crisis	6.851785 (58.09482)
Qualification of the board of directors*finance before crisis	0 (not enough data)
Qualification of the board of directors* finance during crisis	-2843.333 *** (95.76329)
Qualification of the board of directors*finance after crisis	-1206.996*** (90.42358)

***, **, * Significance level at p<0.01, 0.05, 0.1 respectively

Table 20. The industry effect for the earning per employee (EVA) for Russian companies

Interaction effect	Coefficients
Earnings per employee*construction before crisis	385.9717 (422.0626)
Earnings per employee *construction during crisis	111.9133 (341.964)
Earnings per employee *construction after crisis	27.59173 (379.1479)
Earnings per employee *energy before crisis	-52.36228 (34.60377)
Earnings per employee *energy during crisis	-238.9273** (109.7125)
Earnings per employee *energy after crisis	-3.054452* (13.36875)
Earnings per employee *services before crisis	173.1658 (2417.04)
Earnings per employee * services during crisis	69.54869 (1082.852)
Earnings per employee *services after crisis	213.0535 (1060.086)
Earnings per employee *trade before crisis	284.1276 (1227.58)
Earnings per employee *during crisis	285.9841 (2407.206)
Earnings per employee *trade after crisis	61.91832 (1095.793)
Earnings per employee *finance before crisis	-153.0421 (4472.082)
Earnings per employee * finance during crisis	-43.79041 (2765.489)
Earnings per employee *finance after crisis	11.98053 (1673.772)

***, **, * Significance level at p<0.01, 0.05, 0.1 respectively

Table 21. The industry effect for the citations in the search engines (EVA) for Russian companies

Interaction effect	Coefficients
Citations*construction before crisis	1.277112 (13.27492)
Citations *construction during crisis	-18.98442 (13.36559)
Citations *construction after crisis	.7225918 (12.98782)
Citations *energy before crisis	23.25076*** (8.407173)
Citations *energy during crisis	-15.8289 * (8.194449)
Citations *energy after crisis	28.62082 *** (7.933639)
Citations *services before crisis	-1.891179 (9.161594)
Citations * services during crisis	5.64902 (9.238731)
Citations *services after crisis	-3.354538 (8.956094)
Citations *trade before crisis	-3.842232 (15.99053)
Citations *during crisis	-3.888256 (16.18105)
Citations *trade after crisis	-3.328833 (16.41582)
Citations *finance before crisis	0 (not enough data)
Citations * finance during crisis	-639.3042*** (20.6899)
Citations *finance after crisis	0 (not enough data)

***, **, * Significance level at p<0.01, 0.05, 0.1 respectively

Table 22. The industry effect for the intangible assets (EVA) for Russian companies

Interaction effect	Coefficients
Intangible assets *construction before crisis	134.7485 (313.4697)
Intangible assets *construction during crisis	-2.230284 * (1.285632)
Intangible assets *construction after crisis	-.7950082 (1.554194)
Intangible assets *energy before crisis	.1308324 (.2664932)
Intangible assets *energy during crisis	-1.983761*** (.1221326)
Intangible assets *energy after crisis	-.0139416 (.0888907)
Intangible assets *services before crisis	112.7674 (501.1503)
Intangible assets * services during crisis	.2424525** ( .120576)
Intangible assets *services after crisis	-.2364125 *** (.0578193)
Intangible assets *trade before crisis	-89.47159 (2257.276)
Intangible assets * trade during crisis	.0091378 (1.002473)
Intangible assets *trade after crisis	-.0055392 (.2714874)
Intangible assets *finance before crisis	0 (not enough data)
Intangible assets * finance during crisis	-2.422359*** (.1511194)
Intangible assets *finance after crisis	-1.122857 *** (.1453888)

***, **, * Significance level at p<0.01, 0.05, 0.1 respectively

Table 23. Summary of the industry effect of the significant intangibles for EVA in Russian companies

Significant intangibles with the interaction effect/industry	Manufacturing	Construction & Real Estate	Energy & Chemical	Services	Trade	Finance& Insurance
Foreign capital employment during crisis	Reference category	-**	-***			-***
Qualification of the board of directors during crisis	Reference category		-**			-***
Qualification of the board of directors after crisis	Reference category			-*		-***
Earnings per employee during crisis	Reference category		-**
Earnings per employee after	Reference category		-*
Citations before crisis	Reference category		+***
Citations during crisis	Reference category		-*			-***
Citations after crisis	Reference category		+***
Intangible assets during crisis	Reference category	-*	-***	+**		-***
Intangible assets after crisis	Reference category			-***		-***

***, **,* Significance level at p<0.01, 0.05, 0.1 respectively

“+” positive effect in comparison with the reference variable

“-“negative effect in comparison with the reference variable

*Source: own elaboration.

According to the summary of the industry effect of the significant intangibles for the indicator of EVA in Russian companies (Table 23), such intangible resource as foreign capital employment during the crisis is negatively significant in the construction and real estate, energy and chemical, finance and insurance companies in comparison with the manufacturing industry. Qualification of the board of directors during crisis has negative effect on the EVA in the energy and chemical and finance and insurance industries in comparison with the manufacturing. Qualification of the board of directors after crisis has also negative effect in comparison with the manufacturing in the services and finance and insurance industry. Earnings per employee during and after the crisis lead to the lower returns on the EVA for the energy and chemical industry than for the manufacturing industry. Citations in the search engines have negative effect on the EVA indicator for the energy and chemical and finance industry. On the other hand, citations in the search engines have also positive effect on the EVA in the energy and chemical industry in comparison with the reference industry before and after crisis. Intangible assets during crisis were not growth leading for the EVA in the construction, energy and finance industry, but positive for the services industry in comparison with the manufacturing. However, after crisis intangible assets have negative effect on the EVA in the services and finance industry in comparison with the reference industry. Overall, from the industry effect indicators of the models the most significant and positively influencing on the EVA with most of the intangible resources was the manufacturing industry.

The results of the fixed effect models with the industry effect for the MVA in the Russian intangible-intensive companies are demonstrated in the several tables. Tables 24-25 show the industry effect for the significant intangibles for MVA for Russian companies. Table 26 gives the summary of the industry effect of the analyzed significant intangibles for the MVA in Russian companies.

Table 24. The industry effect for the qualification of the board of directors (MVA) for Russian companies

Interaction effect	Coefficients
Foreign capital employment*construction before crisis	934.4944 (1186.676)
Foreign capital employment*construction during crisis	-693.1039 (740.5166)
Foreign capital employment *construction after crisis	-98.66209 (728.2279)
Foreign capital employment *energy before crisis	1536.132*** (536.9143)
Foreign capital employment *energy during crisis	-1539.9*** (525.7274)
Foreign capital employment *energy after crisis	-232.7717 (525.2233)
Foreign capital employment *services before crisis	-593.9976 (623.9305)
Foreign capital employment * services during crisis	-1519.697*** (518.9378)
Foreign capital employment *services after crisis	-201.4363 (474.8648)
Foreign capital employment *trade before crisis	-3903.549*** (1075.229)
Foreign capital employment * trade during crisis	-5300.028*** (973.7677)
Foreign capital employment *trade after crisis	-3801.491*** (917.4223)
Foreign capital employment *finance before crisis	-1042.737 (1554.935)
Foreign capital employment * finance during crisis	-6046.894*** (1200.194)
Foreign capital employment *finance after crisis	0 (not enough data)

***, **,* Significance level at p<0.01, 0.05, 0.1 respectively

Table 25. The industry effect for the intangible assets (MVA) for Russian companies

Interaction effect	Coefficients
Intangible assets *construction before crisis	75.09924* (41.01678)
Intangible assets *construction during crisis	-1.699811 (4.42426)
Intangible assets *construction after e crisis	-.4932265 (4.945227)
Intangible assets *energy before crisis	37.9409*** (1.844836)
Intangible assets *energy during crisis	-5.143756*** (.9608392)
Intangible assets *energy after crisis	-7.311671*** (.6846979)
Intangible assets *services before crisis	93.13464** (37.05665)
Intangible assets * services during crisis	-.1427223 (1.017195)
Intangible assets *services after crisis	1.159073** (.5039536)
Intangible assets *trade before crisis	.9581451 (7.408636)
Intangible assets * trade during crisis	-1.374338 (9.556928)
Intangible assets *trade after crisis	.9716816 (1.987924)
Intangible assets *finance before crisis	1.601703 (1.629724)
Intangible assets * finance during crisis	-1.013103 (1.249372)
Intangible assets *finance after crisis	.1864471 (1.200812)

***, **,* Significance level at p<0.01, 0.05, 0.1 respectively

Table 26. Summary for the industry effect of the significant intangibles for MVA in Russian companies

Significant intangibles with the interaction effect/industry	Manufacturing	Construction & Real Estate	Energy & Chemical	Services	Trade	Finance& Insurance
Foreign capital employment before crisis	Reference category		+***		-***
Foreign capital employment during crisis	Reference category		-**	-***	-***	-***
Foreign capital employment after crisis	Reference category				-***
Intangible assets before crisis	Reference category	+*	+***	+**
Intangible assets during crisis	Reference category		-***
Intangible assets after crisis	Reference category		-***	+**

***, **,* Significance level at p<0.01, 0.05, 0.1 respectively

“+” positive effect in comparison with the reference variable

“-“negative effect in comparison with the reference variable

From the table 26 with the summary of the models for the industry effect of the significant intangibles for MVA in the Russian companies can be seen that in foreign capital employment in the trade industry was negatively significant on the returns of MVA in the all crisis related periods in comparison with the manufacturing industry. Foreign capital employment during the crisis has negative effect in almost all industries besides the construction industry, which has not significant effect in comparison with the manufacturing industry. In the energy and chemical industry, it was observed more positive significant effect on the MVA growth than in the manufacturing industry. Intangible assets have positive effect on the MVA indicator with the construction, energy and services industries before crisis than reference industry. Intangible assets also have growth effect on the MVA before and after crisis than the manufacturing industry. However, the energy and chemical industry was also significant for the influence of the intangible assets in the all crisis related periods, but has negative effect on the MVA during and after the crisis. Overall, both intangibles show negative significant effect on the returns of MVA in all periods in comparison with manufacturing industries, except for intangible assets before crisis, which was positively significant in the most of the industries.

The results of the fixed effect models with the industry effect for intangible-intensive European companies for the EVA are presented below. Tables 27-28 present the industry effect for the significant intangibles for EVA for European companies. Table 29 gives the summary of the industry effect of the analyzed significant intangibles for the EVA in the European companies.

Table 27. The industry effect for the earnings per employee (EVA) for European companies

Interaction effect	Coefficients
Earnings per employee*construction before crisis	-43.32318*** (14.56332)
Earnings per employee *construction during crisis	-22.82986 (29.89143)
Earnings per employee *construction after crisis	-4.527031 (48.59107)
Earnings per employee *energy before crisis	1349.074*** (222.3838)
Earnings per employee *energy during crisis	375.6994* (195.8398)
Earnings per employee *energy after crisis	-18.77089 (28.66412)
Earnings per employee *services before crisis	140.1854 (110.0625)
Earnings per employee * services during crisis	618.7367 (594.3417)
Earnings per employee *services after crisis	1005.506* (585.5272)
Earnings per employee *trade before crisis	-125.1231 (544.1422)
Earnings per employee *during crisis	-143.8266 (1547.18)
Earnings per employee *trade after crisis	1002.165 (860.494)
Earnings per employee *finance before crisis	124.2574 (282.1607)
Earnings per employee * finance during crisis	318.2084 (587.3049)
Earnings per employee *finance after crisis	-1179.443* (605.8572)
Earnings per employee*prof. service before crisis	-15.93575 (189.9866)
Earnings per employee*prof. service during crisis	-48.54912** (19.26463)
Earnings per employee*prof. service after crisis	-45.54856* (26.55768)

***, **,* Significance level at p<0.01, 0.05, 0.1 respectively

Table 28/ The industry effect for the membership in the business associations in the search engines (EVA) for European companies

Interaction effect	Coefficients
Business associations*construction before crisis	10.12437 (94.92571)
Business associations*construction during crisis	-186.9846* (104.3817)
Business associations*construction after crisis	-221.6738*** (67.78909)
Business associations *energy before crisis	-985.6477*** (118.3131)
Business associations *energy during crisis	-1227.411*** (114.8591)
Business associations *energy after crisis	-1200.483*** (73.46584)
Business associations *services before crisis	-14.70452 (73.09019)
Business associations * services during crisis	-133.7861* (79.08365)
Business associations *services after crisis	-19.42243 (56.60586)
Business associations *trade before crisis	15.3128 (86.92023)
Business associations *trade during crisis	-132.5345 (94.12327)
Business associations *trade after crisis	-69.6856 (68.06426)
Business associations *finance before crisis	153.7409 (225.6654)
Business associations * finance during crisis	-38.49948 (225.6571)
Business associations *finance after crisis	-408.6842** (204.475)
Business associations *prof. service before crisis	-12.57404 (58.46544)
Business associations *prof. service during crisis	-24.85452 (60.75775)
Business associations *prof. service after crisis	20.94876 (46.17445)

***, **,* Significance level at p<0.01, 0.05, 0.1 respectively

Table 29. Summary for the industry effect of the significant intangibles for EVA in European companies

Significant intangibles with the interaction effect/industry	Manufacturing	Construct. & Real Estate	Energy & Chemical	Services	Trade	Finance& Insurance	Prof. service
Earnings per employee before crisis	Reference category	-***	+***
Earnings per employee during crisis	Reference category		+*				-**
Earnings per employee after crisis	Reference category			+*		-*	-*
Membership in business associations before crisis	Reference category		-***
Membership in business associations during crisis	Reference category	-*	-***	-*
Membership in business associations after crisis	Reference category	-***	-***			-**

***, **,* Significance level at p<0.01, 0.05, 0.1 respectively

“+” positive effect in comparison with the reference variable

“-“negative effect in comparison with the reference variable

According to the summary for the industry effect of the significant intangibles for EVA in European companies, such intangible resource as earning per employees before and during the crisis has positive effect on the EVA returns in comparison with the manufacturing industry. In the services industry it was also observed positive effect of the earnings per employee after crisis in comparison with the reference industry. Earnings per employee indicator was significantly negative on the returns of EVA in European companies before crisis in the construction and real estate industry, professional services during crisis and finance and professional services industries after crisis in comparison with the manufacturing industry. Membership in business associations indicator was negatively significant in all periods for the energy and chemical industry for EVA. Negative effect of the membership in the business associations on EVA was also observed for construction industry during and after crisis, for the services industry during crisis and for the finance industry after crisis in comparison with the manufacturing industry. Overall, earnings per employee was significant on the returns of EVA in the energy and chemical, service industries in the crisis related periods, while for the membership in the associations influence on the EVA the manufacturing industry was more significant in the crisis related industries.

The results of the fixed effect models with the industry effect for European companies for the MVA are the following. Tables 30-33 show the industry effect for the significant intangibles for MVA for Russian companies. Table 34 gives the summary of the industry effect of the analyzed significant intangibles for the MVA in European companies.

Table 30. The industry effect for the qualification of the board of directors (MVA) for European companies

Interaction effect	Coefficients
Qualification of the board of directors*construction before crisis	379.0409 (166.1606)
Qualification of the board of directors*construction during crisis	7.562193** (183.0945)
Qualification of the board of directors*construction after crisis	-19.99973 (169.8762)
Qualification of the board of directors*energy before crisis	1543.887*** (165.5695)
Qualification of the board of directors*energy during crisis	307.6288 (188.634)
Qualification of the board of directors*energy after crisis	-773.7771*** (174.06)
Qualification of the board of directors*services before crisis	386.754*** (131.4464)
Qualification of the board of directors* services during crisis	-134.6078 (151.5318)
Qualification of the board of directors*services after crisis	-80.23755 (137.4917)
Qualification of the board of directors*trade before crisis	458.992*** (168.0985)
Qualification of the board of directors* trade during crisis	158.9512 (191.5155)
Qualification of the board of directors*trade after crisis	732.1003*** (169.3849)
Qualification of the board of directors*finance before crisis	665.5763*** (201.497)
Qualification of the board of directors* finance during crisis	120.7629 (179.1215)
Qualification of the board of directors*finance after crisis	-3.294805 (168.7897)
Qualification of the board of directors *prof. service before crisis	138.925 (88.94468)
Qualification of the board of directors* prof. service during crisis	-31.9476 (99.37892)
Qualification of the board of directors *prof. service after crisis	62.94434 (90.57956)

***, **,* Significance level at p<0.01, 0.05, 0.1 respectively

Table 31. The industry effect for the presence of corporate university (MVA) for European companies

Interaction effect	Coefficients
Corporate university*construction before crisis	883.9384* (501.2755)
Corporate university *construction during crisis	-216.3764 (541.832)
Corporate university *construction after crisis	-579.1266 (470.0684)
Corporate university *energy before crisis	7485.381*** (694.9699)
Corporate university *energy during crisis	1870.34** (750.9079)
Corporate university *energy after crisis	-2616.349*** (685.1987)
Corporate university *services before crisis	835.3471** (382.8795)
Corporate university * services during crisis	-770.6361* (431.5968)
Corporate university *services after crisis	-539.8377 (337.6465)
Corporate university *trade before crisis	24.1993 (474.9966)
Corporate university *trade during crisis	-729.1183 (513.6965)
Corporate university *trade after crisis	168.1204 (465.5815)
Corporate university *finance before crisis	3034.184*** (1052.703)
Corporate university * finance during crisis	475.3183 (1100.956)
Corporate university *finance after crisis	-815.8137 (1071.13)
Corporate university *prof. service before crisis	233.5432 (264.9225)
Corporate university * prof. service during crisis	-238.5145 (290.0215)
Corporate university *prof. service after crisis	49.76666 (259.2396)

***, **,* Significance level at p<0.01, 0.05, 0.1 respectively

Table 32. The industry effect for the membership in the business associations in the search engines (MVA) for Russian companies

Interaction effect	Coefficients
Business associations*construction before crisis	545.5319 (451.456)
Business associations*construction during crisis	-276.507 (482.551)
Business associations*construction after crisis	-330.7153 (312.828)
Business associations *energy before crisis	2089.838*** (597.6384)
Business associations *energy during crisis	-2613.792 *** (573.2028)
Business associations *energy after crisis	-3723.69*** (376.1772)
Business associations *services before crisis	558.3197 (347.2307)
Business associations * services during crisis	-513.3568 (373.0555)
Business associations *services after crisis	-27.93895 (260.117)
Business associations *trade before crisis	569.9986 (428.9612)
Business associations *trade during crisis	-685.4508 (458.3617)
Business associations *trade after crisis	466.9284 (331.5207)
Business associations *finance before crisis	3456.392*** (890.3613)
Business associations * finance during crisis	-575.0296 (866.4748)
Business associations * finance after crisis	-1763.884** (799.0929)
Business associations *prof. service before crisis	-101.2693 (271.8589)
Business associations * prof. service during crisis	-343.965 (284.1031)
Business associations *prof. service after crisis	36.6783 ( 213.679)

***, **, * Significance level at p<0.01, 0.05, 0.1 respectively

Table 33. The industry effect for the ERP system implementation (MVA) for European companies

Interaction effect	Coefficients
ERP*construction before crisis	158.6675 (427.4748)
ERP *construction during crisis	-692.9731 (472.5229)
ERP *construction after crisis	-764.9918** (363.0623)
ERP *energy before crisis	4088.067*** (567.1125)
ERP *energy during crisis	870.1565 (582.5685)
ERP *energy after crisis	-255.5148 (479.8763)
ERP *services before crisis	-155.1314 (365.9464)
ERP* services during crisis	-1632.932*** (399.1812)
ERP*services after crisis	-1395.098*** (322.8627)
ERP*trade before crisis	1173.047*** (477.3211)
ERP *trade during crisis	139.0719 (512.0336)
ERP *trade after crisis	140.1465 (396.0349)
ERP *finance before crisis	2117.548** (925.8534)
ERP * finance during crisis	-112.9546 (864.8328)
ERP *finance after crisis	-1227.182* (643.0619)
ERP*prof. service before crisis	-375.9545 (255.4069)
ERP* prof. service during crisis	-740.6871*** (265.2902)
ERP*prof. service after crisis	-444.3638** (208.1511)

***, **, * Significance level at p<0.01, 0.05, 0.1 respectively

Table 34. Summary for the industry effect of the significant intangibles for MVA in European companies

Significant intangibles with the interaction effect/industry	Manufacturing	Construct. & Real Estate	Energy & Chemical	Services	Trade	Finance& Insurance	Prof. service
Qualification of the board of directors before crisis	Reference category		+***	+***	+****	+***
Qualification of the board of directors during crisis	Reference category	+**
Qualification of the board of directors after crisis	Reference category		-***		+***
Corporate university before crisis	Reference category	+*	+***	+***		+***
Corporate university during crisis	Reference category		-**	-*
Corporate university after crisis	Reference category		+***
Membership in business associations before crisis	Reference category	+***				+***
Membership in business associations during crisis	Reference category	-***
Membership in business associations after crisis	Reference category	-***				-**
ERP system implementation before crisis	Reference category		+***		+***	+**
ERP system implementation during crisis	Reference category			-***			-***
ERP system after crisis	Reference category	-**		-***		-*	-**

***, **, * Significance level at p<0.01, 0.05, 0.1 respectively

“+” positive effect in comparison with the reference variable

“-” negative effect in comparison with the reference variable

From the table 34 with the summary for the industry effect of the significant intangibles on the returns of the MVA in the intangible-intensive European companies, such indicator as the qualification of the board of directors has positive effect on the returns of MVA before crisis in the energy and chemical, services, trade and finance industries in comparison with the manufacturing industry. During the crisis for the construction industry and after the crisis for the trade industry in comparison with the reference industry the same effect was observed for the qualification of the board of directors. Corporate university was positively significant on the returns of MVA in almost all industries before crisis in comparison with the manufacturing industry; negatively significant for the energy and services industry and positively significant for the energy and chemical industry after the crisis. Membership in the business associations was positively significant on the MVA indicator for the construction and finance industry; negatively significant for the construction industry during the crisis and for the construction and finance industry after crisis in comparison with the manufacturing industry. ERP system was positively significant on the returns of MVA for the energy, trade and finance industry, negatively significant for the services and professional services industries during the crisis and negatively significant in almost all industries in comparison with the manufacturing industry. Overall, it was observed positive effect of almost all significant intangibles on the MVA growth before crisis for European companies.

As a result, for the intangibles significant on the returns of EVA and MVA in the crisis and crisis related periods in the intangible-intensive Russian companies the most significant industry was manufacturing industry. H4 is not rejected as significant for the performance intangibles of intangible-intensive companies in the crisis related periods in Russia are significant with the positive effect of manufacturing industry predominantly. The overall positive effect on the returns of MVA in the intangible-intensive Russian companies was observed only for the intangible assets before crisis in such industries as construction, energy and chemical and services in comparison with the manufacturing industry. For European companies positive effect of almost all intangibles on the returns of MVA was observed before crisis in comparison with the manufacturing industry. Even if the negative effect on the EVA and MVA indicators was observed for the some industries for the several intangibles in the European companies, the results showed that the indicator of earnings per employee has positive effect on the returns of EVA during and after crisis for the energy and chemical industry, after crisis for the services industry in comparison with the manufacturing industry. The indicator of the qualification of the board of directors, corporate university was positively significant on the returns of MVA during and after crisis for several industries in comparison with the manufacturing industry. Therefore, H4 is rejected for European companies, as manufacturing is not predominant industry, which brings positive effect on the significant intangibles influence on the company performance.

Conclusion

Various studies investigated topic of intangibles as company's value driver in terms of crisis as studies of [Guevara and Bounfour, 2013; Shakina and Barajas, 2016; Cincera et al., 2012; Archibugi et al., 2013; Jung et al.,2018]. This study was aimed to continue and deepen investigations of the topic. The research has the new dimension from previous studies, such as investigation of influence of intangible-intensive strategy of companies in the crisis related periods on the performance, concerning also industry effect and comparing trends for the Russian and European companies, which is not fully researched topic.

This research analyzes and compares the performance of intangible-intensive and not intangible-intensive Russian and European companies in the periods related to crisis. The study also investigates influence of intangibles on the performance of Russian and European companies in the changing economic life cycles and studies the industry effect for the observed significant intangibles for the performance of Russian and European companies in the crisis related periods.

The study is based on the samples of more than 1600 European and 1000 Russian public companies observed in 2004-2013 years in various industries with various indicators. The results of the study answered stated research questions and tested related to the questions hypotheses. According to the results following conclusions can be interpreted:

Answering the first research question with usage of median test, such results as different performance indicators for the intangible-intensive and not intangible-intensive companies for Europe can be observed, while for Russian companies it was observed not such difference in the median performance indicators between intangible-intensive and not intangible-intensive companies. Both Russian and European intangible-intensive companies outperformed not intangible-intensive companies in human capital in the all crisis related periods. In the most of the cases for European intangible-intensive companies such trend as median for the EVA was lower and MVA was higher than for non-intensive ones was discovered.

The results for the second research question found out that several intangibles were significant on the performance of the Russian and European companies in the crisis related periods. It was discovered also that various intangibles were significant mostly not in the all crisis related periods. Significant for the EVA intangible in all periods was foreign capital employment for Russia with the positive impact on the returns, there were no significant intangible in all three periods for Europe. Significant for the MVA intangible in all the crisis related period for Russia was intangible assets, for Europe membership in the business associations with the negative and positive returns respectively. Some similar trends for both regions can be observed as positive influence on the returns of EVA for Russian and European companies: for Russian companies it was before and after crisis, while for European companies - before and during crisis. It was also positive influence on EVA of qualification of the board of directors before and during the crisis for Russian companies and after crisis for European companies. Membership in business associations showed negative influence on the EVA of Russian and European companies during crisis, though this indicator showed positive effect after crisis for the MVA for both regions. Generally, intangibles of human capital were most positively influential for the performance for both regions in the crisis related periods.

The last part of the results about the industry effect for the significant intangibles discovered that for Russia the most significant with positive effect was manufacturing industry, for European companies there was no the same trend. The overall positive effect on the returns of MVA in the intangible-intensive Russian companies was observed only for the intangible assets before crisis in such industries as construction, energy and chemical and services in comparison with the manufacturing industry. For European companies positive effect of almost all intangibles on the returns of MVA was observed before crisis for most of the industries in comparison with the manufacturing industry. The indicator of the qualification of the board of directors, corporate university was positively significant on the returns of MVA during or after crisis for the construction, energy and chemical and trade industries in comparison with the manufacturing industry.

This study covers the research of the significance of intangibles on the performance for Russian and European intangible-intensive companies. Further research can be concentrated on the analyzing speed and acceleration effect of the intangibles after crisis. The research can also observe the results of this study with the intangible-intensive companies in the Asian markets taking into the consideration reviewed study of [Jung et al., 2018] about R&D investment for small and medium enterprises in Korea during recession periods.

Apart from that, most studies conducted in this field are quantitative, qualitative research will provide deeper insights and might be more useful for management of concrete companies.

Overall, this research is important for decision-making for investors during crisis as it defines what types of companies are more resistant to it, what types of investments in intangibles will help the organizations to recover faster, in which industries some intangible are more significant. The findings will be also useful for strategic company management and further studies on this topic.

References

1. Acuna A., Parra V.,Troncoso S., (2012). Design of applied strategic management model the construction sector: Impact of construction association, Journal of Construction, 11(1), 4-15.

2. Adalet McGowan, M., Andrews, D., Criscuolo, C., & Nicoletti, G. (2015). The future of productivity. Йditions OCDE, Paris.

3. Allen, R. E., & Snyder, D. (2009). New thinking on the financial crisis. Critical perspectives on international business, 5(1/2), 36-55. https://doi.org/10.1108/17422040910938677

4. Archibugi, D., & Filippetti, A. (2013). Innovation and economic crisis: lessons and prospects from the economic downturn. Routledge.

5. Bakker, M. B. B., & Klingen, M. C. (2012). How Emerging Europe Came Through the 2008/09 Crisis: An Account by the Staff of the IMF's European Department. International Monetary Fund.

6. Barajas, A., Shakina, E., & Fernбndez-Jardуn, C. (2017). Acceleration effect of intangibles in the recovery of corporate performance after-crisis. Research in International Business and Finance, 42, 1115-1122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2017.07.046

7. Baran, D., Hrotko, L., & Olejnнk, P. (2007). ECONOMIC VALUE ADDED--EVA. Economics & Management.

8. Bontis, N. (2004). National intellectual capital index: a United Nations initiative for the Arab region. Journal of intellectual capital, 5(1), 13-39. https://doi.org/10.1108/14691930410512905

9. Bornemann, M., Knapp, A., Schneider, U., & Sixl, K. I. (1999, June). Holistic measurement of intellectual capital. In International Symposium: Measuring and Reporting Intellectual Capital: Experiences, Issues and Prospects. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/industry/ind/1947871.pdf

10. Brooking, A. (1996). Intellectual capital: Core assets for the third millennium enterprise. London: Thomson Business Press.

11. Brьderl, J., & Ludwig, V. (2015). Fixed-effects panel regression. The Sage handbook of regression analysis and causal inference, 327-357.

12. Carmeli, A., & Tishler, A. (2004). The relationships between intangible organizational elements and organizational performance. Strategic management journal, 25(13), 1257-1278. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.428

13. Cheng, C. C., & Krumwiede, D. (2017). What makes a manufacturing firm effective for service innovation? The role of intangible capital under strategic and environmental conditions. International Journal of Production Economics, 193, 113-122 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.07.007

14. Choo, C. W., & Bontis, N. (Eds.). (2002). The strategic management of intellectual capital and organizational knowledge. Oxford University Press on Demand.

15. Chu, A. B. (2018). Mobile Technology and Financial Inclusion. In Handbook of Blockchain, Digital Finance, and Inclusion, Volume 1(pp. 131-144). Academic Press.

16. Cincera, M., Cozza, C., Tьbke, A., & Voigt, P. (2012). Doing R&D or not (in a crisis), that is the question…. European planning studies, 20(9), 1525-1547. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2012.709064

17. Comin, Diego (August 2006). Total Factor Productivity. New York University and NBER

18. Corrado, C. A., & Hulten, C. R. (2010). How do you measure a" technological revolution"?. American Economic Review, 100(2), 99-104. DOI: 10.1257/aer.100.2.99

19. De Bonis, R., Giustiniani, A., & Gomel, G. (1999). Crises and bail outs of banks and countries: Linkages, analogies, and differences. World Economy, 22(1), 55-86. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9701.00193

20. Delios, A., & Beamish, P. W. (2001). Survival and profitability: The roles of experience and intangible assets in foreign subsidiary performance. Academy of Management journal, 44(5), 1028-1038. doi:10.5465/3069446

21. Drucker, P.F. (1993). The rise of the knowledge society. Wilson Quarterly, 17(2), 52-71. Retrieved from http://earthsharing.org/library/drucker-peter_rise-of-the-knowledge-society-1993/1

22. Edvinsson, L., & Malone, M. S. (1997). Intellectual capital: realizing your company's true value by finding its hidden brainpower. NY: Harper Business.

23. Gogan, L. M., & Draghici, A. (2013). A model to evaluate the intellectual capital. Procedia Technology, 9, 867-875. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.protcy.2013.12.096

24. Gu, F., & Lev, B. (2011). Intangible assets: Measurement, drivers, and usefulness. In Managing knowledge assets and business value creation in organizations: Measures and dynamics (pp. 110-124). IGI Global. doi: 10.4018/978-1-60960-071-6.ch007

25. Guevara, D., & Bounfour, A. (2013). Monitoring intellectual capital: a case study of a large company during the recent economic crisis. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 11(2), 196-207. https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2013.12

26. Gurvich, E., & Vakulenko, E. (2017). Macroeconomic and structural properties of the Russian labor market: A cross-country comparison. Russian Journal of Economics, (3), 411-424. dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ruje.2017.12.006

27. Huang, S. M., Ou, C. S., Chen, C. M., & Lin, B. (2006). An empirical study of relationship between IT investment and firm performance: A resource-based perspective. European Journal of Operational Research, 173(3), 984-999. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221705004728?via%3Dihub

28. Hultйn, P., Barron, A., & Bryson, D. (2012). Cross-country differences in attitudes to business associations during the 2007-2010 recession. Journal of World Business, 47(3), 352-361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2011.05.003

29. Jung, H., Hwang, J., & Kim, B. K. (2018). Does R&D investment increase SME survival during a recession?. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 137, 190-198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.07.042

30. Kramer, J. K., & Peters, J. R. (2001). An interindustry analysis of economic value added as a proxy for market value added. Journal of Applied Finance, 11(1), 41-49.

31. Lev, B. (2000). Intangibles: Management, measurement, and reporting. Brookings institution press.

32. Lev, Baruch Itamar, Intangibles (July 23, 2018). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3218586 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3218586

33. Luthy, D. H. (1998, August). Intellectual capital and its measurement. In Proceedings of the Asian Pacific Interdisciplinary Research in Accounting Conference (APIRA), Osaka, Japan (pp. 16-17). Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ab31/a561613f45a9c1ee3805a5c9be6ad5d1c031.pdf

34. Maditinos, D., Sevic, Z., & Tsairidis, C. (2010). Intellectual capital and business performance: an empirical study for the Greek listed companies. European Research Studies, 13(3), 145.

35. Malhotra, Y. (2002). Knowledge assets in the global economy: assessment of national intellectual capital. In Intelligent Support Systems: Knowledge Management (pp. 22-42). IGI Global. doi: 10.4018/978-1-931777-00-1.ch003

36. McGrattan, E. R. (2017). Intangible capital and measured productivity (No. w23233). National Bureau of Economic Research. DOI: 10.3386/w23233

37. Molodchik, M., Shakina, E. and Barajas, A. (2014). Metrics for the elements of intellectual capital in an economy driven by knowledge. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 15(2), 206-226 https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-08-2013-0091.

38. Mouritsen, J. (1998). Driving growth: economic value added versus intellectual capital. Management accounting research, 9(4), 461-482. https://doi.org/10.1006/mare.1998.0090

39. Nazari, J. A. (2015). Intellectual capital measurement and reporting models. In Knowledge management for competitive advantage during economic crisis (pp. 117-139). IGI Global. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281855024_Intellectual_Capital_Measurement_and_Reporting_Models

40. Orens, R., Aerts, W., & Lybaert, N. (2009). Intellectual capital disclosure, cost of finance and firm value. Management Decision, 47(10), 1536-1554. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740911004673

41. Ozkan, N., Cakan, S., & Kayacan, M. (2017). Intellectual capital and financial performance: A study of the Turkish Banking Sector. Borsa Istanbul Review, 17(3), 190-198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bir.2016.03.001

42. Paunov, C. (2012). The global crisis and firms' investments in innovation. Research Policy, 41(1), 24-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.07.007

43. Petty, R., & Guthrie, J. (2000). Intellectual capital literature review: measurement, reporting and management. Journal of intellectual capital, 1(2), 155-176. https://doi.org/10.1108/14691930010348731

44. Sellers-Rubio, R., & Mas-Ruiz, F. (2007). An empirical analysis of productivity growth in retail services: evidence from Spain. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 18(1), 52-69. https://doi.org/10.1108/09564230710732894

45. Shakina, E., & Barajas, A. (2013). The contribution of intellectual capital to value creation. Contemporary Economics, 7(4), 41-56. DOI: 10.5709/ce.1897-9254.121

46. Shakina, E., & Barajas, A. (2014). Value creation through intellectual capital in developed European markets. Journal of Economic Studies, 41(2), 272-291. https://doi.org/10.1108/JES-08-2012-0122

47. Shakina, E., & Barajas, A. (2015). Intangible-intensive profile of a company: the key to outperforming. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 16(4), 721-741. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-03-2015-0025

48. Shakina, E., & Barajas, A. (2016). Intangible-intensive profiles of companies: protection during the economic crisis of 2008-2009. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 17(4), 758-775. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-02-2016-0029

49. Shakina, E., Barajas, A., & Molodchik, M. (2017). Bridging the gap in competitiveness of Russian companies with intangible bricks. Measuring Business Excellence, 21(1), 86-100. https://doi.org/10.1108/MBE-03-2016-0017

50. Smith, G. V., & Parr, R. L. (2000). Valuation of intellectual property and intangible assets (Vol. 13). New York: Wiley.

51. Sveiby, K.E. (1997). The intangible assets monitor. Journal of Human Resource Costing & Accounting, 2(1), 73-97. Retrieved from https://www.sveiby.com/files/pdf/the-intangible-assets-monitor.pdf

52. Sveiby, K. E. (2007). Methods for Measuring Intangible Asset. Retrieved from http://www.sveiby.com/Portals/0/articles/IntangibleMethods.htm

53. Tseng, C. Y., & James Goo, Y. J. (2005). Intellectual capital and corporate value in an emerging economy: empirical study of Taiwanese manufacturers. R&D Management, 35(2), 187-201. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2005.00382

54. Van Ark, B. (2016). The productivity paradox of the new digital economy. International Productivity Monitor, (31), 3.

55. Voskoboynikov, I. B. (2017). Sources of long run economic growth in Russia before and after the global financial crisis. Russian Journal of Economics, 3(4), 348-365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ruje.2017.12.003

56. World Bank (2005). Where is the wealth of nations? Measuring capital for the 21st century. Retrieved from https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/7505

57. Young, S. D., O'byrne, S. F., Young, D. S., Young, S., & O'Byrne Stephen. (2000). EVA and value-based management. McGraw-Hill Professional Publishing.

58. Zouaghi, F., Sбnchez, M., & Martнnez, M. G. (2018). Did the global financial crisis impact firms' innovation performance? The role of internal and external knowledge capabilities in high and low tech industries. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 132, 92-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.01.011

Appendix 1

Do file

For the sample of European companies

1. summarize ih_board_qf ih_corp_univ ih_e_per_emp c_emp_n ir_assoc ir_citations ir_foreign_capital is_erp is_int_assets is_patents is_strategy ih_n_emp f_bv p_eva p_mva, detail

2. pwcorr ih_board_qf c_emp_n ih_corp_univ ih_e_per_emp ir_assoc ir_citations ir_foreign_capital is_erp is_int_assets is_patents is_strategy

3. gen crisis=1 if year==2008 | year==2009

4. replace crisis=0 if crisis==.

5. gen bfcrisis=1 if year< 2008

6. replace bfcrisis=0 if bfcrisis==.

7. gen afcrisis=1 if year>2009

8. replace afcrisis=0 if afcrisis==.

9. table hc_eu if bfcrisis==1, contents(p50 p_eva)

10. median p_eva if bfcrisis==1, by (hc_eu) exact

11. table rc_eu if bfcrisis==1, contents(p50 p_eva)

12. median p_eva if bfcrisis==1, by (rc_eu) exact

13. table sc_eu if bfcrisis==1, contents(p50 p_eva)

14. median p_eva if bfcrisis==1, by (sc_eu) exact

15. table hc_eu if crisis==1, contents(p50 p_eva)