Algorithmic Capital Governance in the Age of Artificial Intelligence: A Conceptual Framework Grounded in the Resource-Based View (RBV) and Intellectual Capital Theory
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59992/IJFAES.2026.v5n6p13Keywords:
AI Governance, Algorithmic Capital Governance, Algorithmic Capital, Algorithmic Asset, Intellectual Capital, Resource-Based ViewAbstract
As artificial intelligence becomes embedded in organizational operations and decisions, governance scholarship has concentrated on the intelligent system as an object of compliance and risk management, while the algorithm as a value-bearing capital asset has remained largely outside the analytical focus. This conceptual study addresses that gap by developing a framework for Algorithmic Capital Governance that treats algorithmic capital as a strategic capital resource within AI-augmented organizations, thereby shifting the unit of analysis from the intelligent system to the algorithmic asset. Drawing on the Resource-Based View (RBV) and Intellectual Capital (IC) theory, and following an established conceptual-paper design, the study subjects the algorithmic asset to the criteria of a strategic resource and demonstrates that it is valuable, rare, inimitable, and non-substitutable, thereby acquiring a capital character that warrants a governance logic derived from its own capital characteristics. The study advances an integrated framework for Algorithmic Capital Governance, linking the asset’s characteristics to its distinctive risks, governance principles, six governance dimensions, and the four phases of its life cycle. The framework is founded on the concept of Derived-Asset Governance (DAG): a governance logic derived not from the technology itself, but from the nature of the algorithmic asset as a capital resource. The study further formulates five theoretically grounded propositions for future empirical testing and offers nine recommendations spanning the research, academic, and professional levels.
References
• Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108
• Batool, A., Zowghi, D., & Bano, M. (2025). AI governance: A systematic literature review. AI and Ethics, 5, 3265–3279. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-024-00653-w
• Birkstedt, T., Minkkinen, M., Tandon, A., & Mäntymäki, M. (2023). AI governance: Themes, knowledge gaps and future agendas. Internet Research, 33(7), 133–167. https://doi.org/10.1108/INTR-01-2022-0042
• Bontis, N. (1998). Intellectual capital: An exploratory study that develops measures and models. Management Decision, 36(2), 63–76. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251749810204142
• Edvinsson, L., & Malone, M. S. (1997). Intellectual capital: Realizing your company’s true value by finding its hidden brainpower. HarperBusiness.
• Gilson, L. L., & Goldberg, C. B. (2015). Editors’ comment: So, what is a conceptual paper? Group & Organization Management, 40(2), 127–130.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601115576425
• Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 109–122. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250171110
• International Organization for Standardization. (2023). ISO/IEC 42001:2023 Information technology—Artificial intelligence—Management system requirements.
https://www.iso.org/standard/81230.html
• Jaakkola, E. (2020). Designing conceptual articles: Four approaches. AMS Review, 10(1–2), 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-020-00161-0
• Khatri, V., & Brown, C. V. (2010). Designing data governance. Communications of the ACM, 53(1), 148–152. https://doi.org/10.1145/1629175.1629210
• Mäntymäki, M., Minkkinen, M., Birkstedt, T., & Viljanen, M. (2022). Defining organizational AI governance. AI and Ethics, 2, 603–609. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-022-00166-5
• Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1998.533225
• National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2023). Artificial intelligence risk management framework (AI RMF 1.0) (NIST AI 100-1).
https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.AI.100-1
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2019). Recommendation of the Council on Artificial Intelligence. https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0449
• Papagiannidis, E., Enholm, I. M., Dremel, C., Mikalef, P., & Krogstie, J. (2023). Toward AI governance: Identifying best practices and potential barriers and outcomes. Information Systems Frontiers, 25(1), 123–141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-021-10123-8
• Papagiannidis, E., Mikalef, P., & Conboy, K. (2025). Responsible artificial intelligence governance: A review and research framework. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 34, 101885. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2025.101885
• Schneider, J., Abraham, R., Meske, C., & vom Brocke, J. (2023). Artificial intelligence governance for businesses. Information Systems Management, 40(3), 229–249.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10580530.2022.2089995
• Stewart, T. A. (1997). Intellectual capital: The new wealth of organizations. Doubleday.
• Sveiby, K. E. (1997). The new organizational wealth: Managing & measuring knowledge-based assets. Berrett-Koehler.
• Teece, D. J. (1998). Capturing value from knowledge assets: The new economy, markets for know-how, and intangible assets. California Management Review, 40(3), 55–79. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165943
• Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7<509: AID-SMJ882>3.0.CO;2-Z
• Weill, P., & Ross, J. W. (2004). IT governance: How top performers manage IT decision rights for superior results. Harvard Business School Press.
• Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171–180. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250050207
