The IC development consists of three stages ( Dumay & Garanina, 2013 ). The first stage creates awareness about IC conceptualization and theoretical development, focusing on the recognition of IC and its role in achieving a competitive advantage ( Stewart, 1999 ). The second stage refers to IC measurement, management, and reporting tools development and IC impact on financial performance ( Stewart, 1999 ), and develops models and measures to “manage” IC and hence, creates different classifications to define and group different methods of IC evaluation ( Ricceri, 2008 ). The third stage critically examines IC in practice, focusing on “how” IC works and develops within organizations ( Guthrie et al., 2012 ). While the second stage of IC reporting predominantly focuses on measuring IC and its linkage with the financial outcomes of organizations, the third stage of IC reporting delves into the deeper managerial implications of managing IC across various types of organizations. This stage can be classified as a bottom-up research approach, in contrast to the top-down approach. Researchers emerged in the mid-2000s with a fourth stage that relates to the development of an IC ecosystem extending beyond organizational boundaries and examining IC from various geographical scopes (i.e., countries, cities, regions) ( Bisogno et al., 2018 ; Secundo et al., 2016 ). These four stages of IC research have developed from addressing the weaknesses of the former stage. Dumay et al. (2018) initiated the fifth stage, which questions whether “managing IC is a worthwhile endeavor” rather than “what IC is worth to its stakeholders and the environment”.

As discussed by Dumay et al. (2018) , IC is a critical area of study for accounting researchers. These scholars argue that the field should expand its focus to encompass broader social and environmental issues, rather than concentrating solely on organizational management. This shift in perspective challenges traditional managerialist arguments, which primarily advocate for enhanced accounts of IC’s value within firms. By broadening the scope, researchers can explore significant questions about the wider societal roles and implications of IC. This approach not only enriches academic discourse but also fosters a more comprehensive understanding of the impact of intellectual capital in diverse contexts. This fifth stage illuminates how the interaction of IC components, including cultural and natural capital, when combined with experience, knowledge, and intellectual property, can be leveraged to create economic, utility, social, and environmental value ( Dumay et al., 2020 ).

Guthrie et al. (2012) find that the least popular areas of IC research appear to be the public sector and not-for-profit organizations. Dumay et al. (2015) , following their research, state that the Public Sector IC primarily focuses its research on central government and related agencies, educational institutions (particularly universities due to researchers’ ease of accessing them ( Bellucci et al., 2021 )), and specific regions in Europe, notably Italy and Spain. Their research primarily employs empirical methods, utilizing case studies to explore management control and strategy within these entities. Researchers in PSIC are deeply engaged in what is termed performative third-stage research. This approach delves into understanding “how” IC functions within organizations, rather than proposing normative solutions or frameworks. In their later study, Dumay et al. (2018) underline that, over the past two decades, the interest in IC accounting research across Europe, North America, and Australasia has advanced and highlighted the extension of IC accounting research beyond the academic level to regulatory bodies, including the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB).

Prompted by Guthrie et al. (2012) , who found that the public sector is one of the least addressed areas of IC research, and enhanced by the call of Dumay et al. (2015) for further research on IC in the public sector, we conduct a systematic literature review to identify the gaps in this field. From a recognition perspective, the complexity of conceptualizing IC impedes its acceptance and adoption, notably, in public sector organizations. From the measurement perspective, measuring outcomes is a well-recognized challenge within the public sector. According to Höglund et al. (2021) , outputs must be directly linked to public value through measurable outcomes. This approach ensures that the services provided by public institutions not only fulfill their intended purposes but also contribute positively to the community in a quantifiable way. From a reporting perspective, it is of utmost interest to see how the public sector has responded to the IC consideration of integrated reporting ( IIRC, 2013 ), which incorporates IC and other forms of non-financial capital ( Dumay et al.,2015 ). Lastly, from a disclosure perspective, Dumay (2016) emphasizes the importance for researchers to understand how reporting differs from disclosure and how publicly listed, private, public sector, or third sector organizations disclose new information that is important to investors and stakeholders. However, a more recent study highlights developments in IC disclosure practices driven by new reporting frameworks such as integrated reporting ( Dumay et al., 2020 ).

To reduce research bias and ensure the replicability and transparency of the systematic literature review, we developed a review protocol describing in detail the steps of the review process, enabling it to be replicated ( Tranfield et al., 2003 ).

Selecting search terms is critical for identifying relevant studies ( Cronin et al., 2008 ). Drawing on prior literature on public sector IC and intangible assets (e.g., Dumay et al., 2015 ; Guthrie et al., 2012 ), we identified the terms related to the accounting domain. These terms were included in the search string ((“intellectual capital” OR “intellectual capital information” OR “intellectual capital report* ¹ ” OR “intellectual capital recogn*” OR “intellectual capital disclos*” OR “intangible*” OR “intangible assets” OR “intangible assets report*” OR “intangible assets recogn*” OR “intangible assets measur*” OR “intangible assets disclos*”) AND (“public sector” OR “local government*” OR “IPSAS*” OR “EPSAS*”)).

We searched the string in two databases, namely SCOPUS and ISI Web of Science (WoS), which are major available electronic databases for multidisciplinary scientific literature ( de Moya-Anegon et al., 2007 ). The search was limited to “Titles, abstracts, and keywords”, as these are the parts of the articles that typically contain keywords in the body of the text and prevent documents not related to the research object from being extracted ( Paoloni et al., 2020 ). The search was launched on November 1st, 2024. This step produced a total of 2,675 documents (see Figure 1 ).

The second step was to apply inclusion criteria and restrict our selection. We limited our search to document type “Article”. To avoid translation issues, we restricted our selection to articles written in English ( Mauro et al., 2017 ). We also limited our search to specific analysis areas, notably “Business, Management and Accounting,” and “Economics, Econometrics, and Finance” in Scopus, and “Public administration,” “Economics,” “Business,” and “Management” in WoS. Finally, we limited the source types to “Journal” and publication stage to “Final” and “Article in press.” To ensure that the structured literature review covered high-quality research already subjected to peer review, we imposed an additional restriction on journals included in the “Academic Journal Guide 2021” rating system and limited the selection to fields we considered relevant to accounting, namely “accounting,” “economics,” “ethics-csr-management,” “finance,” “information management,” and “public sector”. This second step produced a total of 272 documents (226 from Scopus and 46 from WOS).

Then we unified the two databases and applied exclusion criteria. First, we removed duplicates. This resulted in the discarding of 31 documents. Then, we assessed the focus of the articles ( Paoloni et al., 2020 ; Mauro et al., 2017 ). Although relevant to the topic we chose to analyze, many of the articles extracted from Scopus and WoS focused on the private sector or domains other than accounting, such as management or human resources. We manually assessed each article by first reading the title, keywords, and abstracts. Then, if this information was not enough for an assessment, we read the entire paper. To minimize subjectivity and bias, this task was performed individually by each author, and then our results were compared ( Paoloni et al., 2020 ). This process resulted in the removal of 204 additional documents, reducing the number of eligible articles to 37.

To ensure that we did not omit any relevant articles due to different keywords, a third step was considered necessary. We examined the cited articles within the documents extracted from Scopus and WoS and identified four additional articles. Furthermore, we used the advanced search function in Google Scholar and repeated the search. Eleven additional articles were identified during this process, which were not included in the Scopus and WoS databases, bringing the total to 52 papers for review. Figure 1 presents the review protocol of our study.

Drawing on prior literature (e.g., Massaro et al., 2016 ; Nerantzidis et al., 2022 ; Paoloni et al., 2020 ; Rana et al., 2022 ), we developed a coding scheme to analyze the selected papers. This coding scheme allowed us to classify each paper according to four criteria: (A) distribution of papers by academic discipline and journal, (B) temporal distribution of papers, (C) distribution of papers by author, and (D) distribution by research methodology, geographical distribution by continent and country, and distribution by organizational focus. To ensure the reliability of our coding scheme ( Littell et al., 2008 ), each author read and classified the papers according to these criteria. Then, we shared and discussed findings to resolve any possible differences in the classification.

With this research question, we aim to shed light on the field’s development and the progress made to date. The analysis follows the four criteria, adapted from prior systematic literature review studies (e.g., Nerantzidis, et al., 2022 ; Paoloni et al., 2020 ; Rana et al., 2022 ): (A) distribution of papers by academic discipline and journal, (B) temporal distribution of papers, (C) distribution of papers by author, and (D) distribution by research methodology.

Table 1 illustrates the distribution of articles within the selected fields of the “Academic Journal Guide 2021” list: accounting, economics, ethics-csr-management, information management, and public sector. The 52 studies were found in fifteen journals. As shown in the Table, 69% of them (36 articles) were published in the ethics-csr-management field. Of these, 31 were published in the Journal of Intellectual Capital. The second-highest number of articles was in the accounting field, where nine studies (17%) were identified. The articles were evenly distributed across four high-ranked journals: Critical Perspectives in Accounting, European Accounting Review, Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Management, and The British Accounting Review. The relatively low representation of articles in the accounting discipline indicates that issues related to intangible assets are not adequately addressed by accounting journals.

Figure 2 presents the temporal distribution of articles by discipline and year. In the ethics-csr-management discipline, papers are relatively evenly distributed over time, except for a few small peaks in the years 2010, 2015, 2018, and 2020. In other disciplines, publications on accounting for intangible assets are sporadic, with no discernible trend.

Examining the overall temporal distribution ( Figure 3 ), we see that before 2003, research on intangible assets was practically non-existent, except for Kendrick’s (1972) article “The treatment of intangible resources as capital” and Agor’s (1997) article “The measurement, use, and development of intellectual capital to increase public sector productivity”. Since 2003, a consistently low production of articles has been observed, with the maximum number of publications per year being four articles in the years 2015, 2016, and 2020.

To further explore the time trend of publications, we excluded the Journal of Intellectual Capital from the analysis, as it accounts for the majority of published articles. The rationale behind this decision is that the specific journal specializes in IC studies, thus constituting an outlier in the dataset. To understand how research progressed over time, we needed to examine publication trends in other journals. Figure 4 shows the temporal distribution of articles after excluding the Journal of Intellectual Capital.

Only one year stands out (2020), with three articles, with the rest of the years presenting one or no articles on the topic, and only three years presenting two publications.

The next step was to examine how the articles were distributed among authors. The reason for examining authors was to determine whether the Matthew effect, which sometimes occurs in well-established domains, also applies in under-researched areas ( Dumay, 2016 ). In total, we identified 103 authors in the 52 articles under examination. To explore distribution trends, we limited our focus to those authors with at least two publications. This resulted in fifteen authors, presented in Table 2 . John Dumay was identified as the author with the most publications on the specific topic (ten papers between 2011 and 2018), followed by Yolanda Ramirez (five publications from 2010 to 2022), Giuseppe Nicolo (four publications between 2018 and 2024), James Guthrie (three publications from 2012 to 2015), and Ange Tejada (three publications between 2011 and 2022). Ten more authors had two publications (see Table 2 ). For the remaining authors (88 out of 103), we identified only one publication relevant to the accounting of intangible assets, suggesting that the topic was not among their primary research interests.

Finally, we examined the distribution of papers between different research methods. We adopted Mattei et al.’s (2021) and Nerantzidis et al.’s (2022) criteria to classify the research methods into i) literature reviews, ii) qualitative research, iii) empirical research, iv) mixed research, v) commentary articles, and vi) critical reviews. As shown in Table 3 , three research methods are most frequently used, i.e., literature reviews and qualitative and quantitative studies. The proportion of each of these research methods comprises approximately 1/5 of the total number of studies. Mixed research methods, commentary, and theoretical analyses are less frequent methods (each representing less than 10% of the total number of studies). The literature reviews extend from 2009 until 2023, a fact suggesting that there is still room for mapping the specific research area.

The thematic analysis of the reviewed articles reveals four emerging clusters, each reflecting a distinct trajectory in how scholars approach the recognition, measurement, reporting, and disclosure of public sector intellectual capital (IC) and intangible assets.

The first cluster focuses on the conceptualization and management of IC and intangible assets in the public sector, most notably within universities. This body of research is primarily concerned with defining what constitutes IC in public organizations, understanding its strategic value, and exploring how it can be systematically managed. Studies in this area (e.g., Secundo et al., 2016 ) emphasize that universities, as knowledge-intensive institutions, rely heavily on human, structural, and relational capital to create value. The focus on the academic context reflects a recognition that public institutions, while not profit-driven, still face increasing demands for efficiency, innovation, and accountability—making IC management an essential element of performance and sustainability.

A second thematic cluster focuses on reporting and disclosure practices. Research in this stream explores the factors influencing the disclosure of intangible assets by public sector entities and whether transparency in IC reporting contributes to accountability. Studies such as Nicolò et al. (2023) demonstrate a growing interest in how organizations utilize IC reporting to enhance legitimacy and stakeholder trust. Others, such as Ramírez et al. (2022) , emphasize the contextual factors that influence disclosure levels, including governance practices and digital reporting mechanisms. Collectively, these works indicate that IC disclosure is not merely a technical exercise but also a communicative and strategic act shaped by institutional pressures and evolving expectations of openness in the public domain.

A third theme emerges from critical and reflective works that question the theoretical foundations and future direction of IC research. Central to this debate are the contributions of ( Dumay et al., 2010 , 2015; Dumay, 2016 ), who question the limitations of conventional IC reporting models and ask for more context-sensitive and practice-oriented approaches, shifting the focus to a more critical perspective in the examination of IC. Finally, a fourth theme reflects the sector-specific application of IC research across universities, healthcare organizations, and local governments, signaling the field’s gradual empirical diversification. While universities remain the dominant research setting (e.g., Secundo et al., 2016 ), the inclusion of other sectors indicates growing recognition that IC is relevant across various public contexts, each with distinct missions and value-creation logics.

The preceding thematic analysis helps identify the research gaps and answer the third research question. From our analysis, it becomes clear that, besides the JIC, no other journal publishes frequently on the relevant topic. The limited number of publications addressing the recognition, measurement, reporting, and disclosure of IC and intangible assets suggests that the specific topic is outside the research interest of public sector accounting scholars. The increase in studies in 2015 can be attributed to the establishment of the Public Sector Pioneer Network, which encouraged public sector entities to participate in Integrated Reporting ( Guthrie & Dumay, 2015 ). Furthermore, we find that most studies focus on the management of IC, leaving the accounting treatment of IC and intangible assets underexplored. Considering that our search string included the IPSAS term, we would expect to see papers relevant to IPSAS 31 and their issuance and effectiveness (2010-2011). This identified gap aligns with the findings of prior studies (e.g., Dumay et al., 2015 ), which highlight how IC is being implemented differently in the public sector, with a greater emphasis on managing IC (Dumay and Rooney, 2011) and less emphasis on measuring and reporting.