Critical review investigates governance of intellectual capital through management accounting in organizations, highlighting implications for visibility and accountability.
This study critically investigates the scientific literature on the intersection of management accounting and intellectual capital using a bibliometric performance analysis and science-mapping approach. Drawing on a sample of 59 publications from the Scopus and Web of Science databases, the paper maps the intellectual structure, key contributors, and thematic evolution of the field. This study conceptualizes management accounting not merely as a neutral technical system but as a socio-political mechanism that shapes how intellectual capital is rendered visible, measurable, and governable within organizations. The findings identify five dominant research clusters (intellectual capital and corporate strategy, management accounting and performance, green intellectual capital, digitalization and value creation, and management control and intangibles), revealing how accounting practices actively participate in constructing organizational realities and legitimizing particular forms of value and knowledge. The analysis highlights that measurement and reporting practices privilege certain dimensions of intellectual capital while potentially obscuring others, raising critical questions about power, visibility, and accountability in knowledge-based economies. In particular, the growing emphasis on digitalization and sustainability reflects shifting governance regimes in which accounting systems extend their influence over organizational conduct and strategic decision-making. By integrating bibliometric techniques with a critical interpretive lens, this study contributes to the literature by reframing management accounting as a key site where knowledge, control, and organizational value are negotiated. It also identifies gaps for future research, particularly regarding the ethical and political implications of accounting for intangible resources in increasingly digital and transparency-driven environments.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dias et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: