Intangible property of the world's largest companies: analysis of intangible shares

   The purpose of the study is to assess the intangible property of companies through the indicator "intangible share", defined as the ratio of the sum of intangible assets and business reputation to the total assets of the organization.

   This indicator is considered by the authors as a proxy indicator of the level of development of the company's intangible property, which makes it possible to offset the methodological difficulties of its direct valuation and ensure comparability between different business entities.

   Research methodology. The empirical basis of the study was formed by comparing two types of sources: annual brand valuations published by Interbrand and Brand Finance rating agencies, and balance sheet values of total assets disclosed by companies in public financial statements. Based on our proposed approach, "intangible share (D) is the ratio of the sum of intangible assets and reputation to the total assets of the company." This approach is based on the fact that the brand value estimated by independent agencies, in the absence of a single standard for accounting for intangible assets, makes it possible to compare the intangible component of different companies in absolute and relative terms. The sample includes sectors representing information technology, luxury goods, automotive, financial services, retail, and heavy industry.

   Results. Three multidirectional trends have been recorded: the growth of an intangible share in IT (For example, Microsoft – from 11–16 % in 2012–2015 to a stable 99 % in 2020–2025), consistently narrow corridors in the automotive industry (For example, Honda – 4–13%) and ambiguous dynamics in the segment of consumer goods (For example, McDonald's decreased from 25.9 % in 2012, up to 11–13 % in 2020–2025), with the relative stability of luxury brands. It is shown that an extremely high proportion (over 90 %) is not a rigid industry marker: it is demonstrated by IT giants, luxury brand manufacturers, and social networks. The key role is played by the features of the business model and the success of the monetization of intangible assets, not just belonging to the industry.

   Scientific novelty. Based on the proposed indicator of the intangible share, companies were ranked by the level of the intangible component. A retrospective analysis revealed that as of 2025, the leaders with an extremely high share (over 90 %) include mainly representatives of the IT sector (Microsoft), luxury goods manufacturers (Dior, Louis Vuitton) and social media (Instagram). Manufacturers of consumer goods (IKEA) and technology service companies (Accenture, Philips) demonstrate consistently high values in the range of 55–62 %. Unlike previous studies, in this work the intangible share is considered not as an absolute indicator of the effectiveness of intellectual capital management, but as a value with high sensitivity to the absolute scale of tangible assets.

   Practical significance. The results obtained can be used in valuation activities, investment analysis, as well as in the development of intellectual property management strategies for companies.

1. Al-Khoury A. F., Hussein S. A. (2022). Intellectual capital history and trends: a bibliometric analysis using scopus database. Sustainability. 14(18), 11615. doi: 10.3390/su141811615.

2. Ali M. A., Hussin N., Jabbar H. K., Abed I. A., Othman R., Mohammed A. (2020). Intellectual Capital and Firm Performance Classification and Motivation: Systemati c Literature Review. TEST Engineering and Management. 3, 28691–28703.

3. Alvino F., Di Vaio, A., Hassan R., Palladino R. (2021). Intellectual capital and sustainable development : A systematic literature review. Journal of Intellectual Capital. 22, 76–94.

4. Bamel U., Pereira V., Del Giudice M., Temouri Y. (2020) The extent and impact of intellectual capital research: A two decade analysis. Journal of Intellectual Capital. 23, 375–400.

5. Barth M. E., Beaver W. H., Landsman W. R. (1998). Relative valuation roles of equity book value and net income as a function of financial health. Journal of Accounting and Economics. 25(1), 1–34.

6. Corrado C., Hulten C., Sichel D. (2009). Intangible capital and US economic growth. Review of Income and Wealth. 55(3), 661–685.

7. Dabić M., Lažnjak J., Smallbone D., Švarc J. (2019). Intellectual capital, organisational climate, innovation culture, and SME performance: Evidence from Croatia. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development. 26, 522–544.

8. Dabić M., Vlačić B., Scuotto V., Warkentin M. (2020). Two decades of the Journal of Intellectual Capital: A bibliometric overview and an agenda for future research. Journal of Intellectual Capital. 2, 458–477.

9. Damodaran A. (2012). Investment Valuation: Tools and Techniques for Determining the Value of any Asset, University Edition. 3^rd ed. Wiley.

10. Fakhrutdinova, E., Mokichev S., Kolesnikova J. (2013). The influence of cooperative connections on innovation activities of enterprises. World Applied Sciences Journal. 27(2), 212–215.

11. Givi M. E., Saberi M. K., Talafidaryani M., Abdolhamid M., Nikandish R., Fattahi A. (2021). Assessment of the history and trends of «The Journal of Intellectual Capital»: A bibliometrics, altmetrics and text mining analysis. Journal of Intellectual Capital. 23, 864–912.

12. Grinavtseva E. V. (2023). Analysis of the provisions of the federal accounting standard "intangible assets": problems of application. Economic Sciences. 224, 71–82. doi: 10.14451/1.224.71

13. Karchegani M. R., Sofian S., Amin S. M. (2013). The relationship between intellectual capital and innovation : A review. International Journal of Business and Management Studies. 2, 561–581.

14. Karpova T. P., Karpova V. V. (2017). Identification and measurement of intangible asset value: estimating and accounting approaches. Bulletin of the Financial university. 21, 3(99), 166–176.

15. Keller K. L., Lehmann D. R. (2006). Brands and branding: research findings and future priorities. Marketing Science. 25(6), 740–759.

16. Kolesnikova J. S., Fakhrutdinov R. M. (2019). Brand and intangible component of the company as a mechanism of capitalization of its cost. Kazanskiy ekonomicheskiy vestnik. 2(40), 74–78.

17. Kolesnikova J. S., Ivanov S. E. (2023). Objects of intangible property of companies. The review of economy, the law and sociology. 3, 24–28.

18. Lev B. (2001). Intangibles: Management, Measurement, and Reporting. Brookings Institution Press.

19. Lev B. (2003). Remarks on the Measurement, Valuation, and Reporting of Intangible Assets. Economic Policy Review. September 2003, 17–22.

20. Quintero-Quintero W., Blanco-Ariza A. B., Garzón-Castrillón M. A. (2021). Intellectual Capital : A Review and Bibliometric Analysis. Publications. No. 9. 46 р.

21. Serenko A., Bontis N., Booker L., Sadeddin K., Hardie T. (2010). A scientometric analysis of knowledge management and intellectual capital academic literature (1994–2008). Journal of Knowledge Management. 14, 3–23.

22. Tjahjadi B., Soewarno N., Astri E., Hariyati H. (2019). Does intellectual capital matter in performance management system-organizational performance relationship? Experience of higher education institutions in Indonesia. Journal of Intellectual Capital. 20, 533–554.