
doi: 10.1007/bf03396794
Ludewig and Sadowski (2009) empirically examine the economic value of organiza-tional capital. They use a comprehensive panel data set from the Institute for Employ-ment Research (IAB) that provides standard information about inputs and outputs of the production process of German corporate establishments. This data set also includes orga-nizational dimensions of those establishments, which makes it an interesting source for a study on organizational capital. The sample that Ludewig and Sadowski (2009) use comprises information about whether establishments adopted quality control systems and quality circles, profit or cost centers, and teamwork practices. Moreover, we can determine if the management delegated deci-sion-making power to line workers and whether supply by external vendors increased or outsourcing took place. Using these organizational practices as measures for organi-zational capital and a sophisticated econometric methodology, Ludewig and Sadowski (2009) find that except for profit centers, none of the measures for organizational capital exerts a significant impact on the performance of the establishments. The paper advances our knowledge on the value of organizational capital by shedding light on what partic-ular practices contribute to organizational capital. Thus, this paper represents a valuable contribution to this literature.Given the tremendous importance of intangible capital for the performance of firms and the value they represent to the society, it is difficult to overstate the relevance of research that measures organizational capital and examines antecedents of organizational capital. Still, this literature is relatively young and provides ample opportunities to proceed further. We use Ludewig and Sadowski’s (2009) paper to exemplify our ideas about how to build on existing research. One of the fundamental issues that plague empirical research in organization capital is that which is associated with the endogeneity of the organization. Organizations are not the result of purely random trials from which we can infer the features of the best-
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 0 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
