Search results

The integrated reports published by companies vary significantly in quality in spite of them claiming to be compliant with the integrated reporting (IR) Framework issued by the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC). The purpose of this paper is to develop and apply a normative benchmark against which compliance with the IR Framework, and the extent to which integrated reports make visible how organisations create value, can be evaluated.

The three pillars of the IR Framework – Capitals, Content Elements and the Guiding Principles – are operationalised by the way of a set of disclosure items that capture the extent to which they manifest within integrated reports. The created disclosure index is applied to analyse reports of five companies that are expected to be superior integrated reporters.

The normative benchmark that was created to operationalise the IR Framework identifies a vast amount of potentially communicable information and various degrees to which information may be disclosed. The integrated reports analysed differ significantly in the extent to which value-creation stories are made visible, despite some of the companies promoting to have actively engaged with IR as participants of the IIRC Pilot Program Business Network. All selected companies performed poorly in comparison to the normative benchmark.

This paper is the first to provide a comprehensive normative benchmark for analysing and evaluating compliance with the IR Framework and the extent to which integrated reports make visible how organisations create value.

Despite initially being lauded as a revolutionary approach for companies to account to all stakeholders, the shareholder orientation of the international integrated reporting (<IR>) framework gave rise to questions about whether integrated reports would still sufficiently disclose pertinent corporate social responsibility (CSR) information. This paper aims to investigate the extent to which the <IR> framework has impacted the CSR disclosures contained in integrated reports of South African mining companies.

The study deployed a mixed methods research approach, involving thematic content analysis of the CSR disclosures contained in the integrated reports of mining companies with primary listings on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange. The resultant qualitative data were subsequently analysed using a T-test of difference.

The study observes that the release of the <IR> framework appears to have had a limited impact on the CSR disclosures in the integrated reports of most companies included in the study. However, where significant differences were identified, the CSR disclosures of some companies were positively impacted after the release of the <IR> framework, whilst others were negatively impacted.

As South Africa is acknowledged as a leader in the global <IR> movement, the paper’s observations have global relevance and suggest that the fundamental principles of <IR> should be reconsidered to improve the alignment with stakeholders’ information needs, as originally conceived.

Despite the shareholder orientation of the <IR> framework, the global mining industry is acknowledged as being at the forefront of implementing CSR interventions to mitigate the adverse impacts of their operations on stakeholders, supporting a stakeholder orientation. As the adoption of <IR> continues to gain traction around the world, this paper’s contribution is that it represents one of the few papers to use the global reporting initiative G4 indicators to specifically examine the impact of <IR> framework on the CSR disclosures on the South African mining industry, where both <IR> and CSR reporting are quasi-mandatory disclosure requirements.

This paper aims to provide insights into salient issues in the development of the Integrated Reporting (<IR>) Framework, and emerging issues in the implementation of this Framework, with the aim of identifying opportunities for future research. The International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) has recently produced a reporting framework for the preparation of a concise, user-oriented corporate report which expands the scope of a company’s reporting using a multiple capitals concept and requires a description of a company’s business model, allowing a better communication of its value creation proposition. To gain international acceptance, the market-based benefits of adopting the framework must be demonstrated.

The paper takes the form of an archival analysis of the responses to the IIRC’s public consultation phases, providing insights into arguments for and against salient aspects of the framework, and identifying issues that would benefit from future research.

Identifying issues that arose during the framework preparation, this paper identifies a range of future research opportunities and outlines the research approaches by which academics can assess the costs and benefits of companies reporting in accordance with the <IR> Framework and assuring this information.

Research opportunities associated with the International <IR>) Framework and associated assurance are identified.

This paper provides insights and details of the process of adoption of <IR> and has implications for adopters and assurance providers of integrated reports, standard setters and regulators. The development of a sophisticated business case informed by rigorous research will be critical to the further uptake of <IR>.

Research opportunities identified include the expansion of the <IR> Framework to reporting entities other than corporations, including government and not-for-profit organisations, as well as measurement and assurance of a broader array of capitals, including social capital.

The paper identifies <IR> research opportunities from an archival analysis of the responses to the IIRC’s public consultation phases, providing insights into arguments for and against salient aspects of the framework that would benefit from future research.

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the implementation of the integrated reporting (IR) framework in a group of Colombian enterprises.

This is a multiple-case study in six enterprises that use the IR framework. The selected enterprises, all of which were located in either Bogota or Medellin, were Argos, EEB, EPM, ISA, Nutresa and Ocensa. The authors conducted individual interviews of reporters and performed a documentary analysis.

The few Colombian firms that use the IR framework all have ambitious expansion goals in the medium term. The main reason for the adoption of the IR framework in these firms is that it facilitates access to resources from new foreign investors.

Since the framework was published recently, only a few Colombian firms follow it, and several of them do not apply all of its components. In the future, there will be more reports and a higher level of framework application.

In the firms studied, the IR framework is an important tool to support the search strategies of new sources of financial capital.

If the use of the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) framework were to diminish the application of the GRI, firms would be less likely to evaluate the impact of their activities on numerous stakeholders (other than shareholders).

This is the first Colombian study of IR to include both documentary analysis and personal interviews.

This study aims to explore the linkages between sustainable development and sustainability reporting by approaching the UN’s 2030 Agenda in connection with the Integrated Reporting (IR) and Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) frameworks. It aims to outline a theoretical model able to support the achievement of sustainable development goals (SDGs) through appropriate reporting.

The research methodology follows a qualitative approach, combining content and benchmarking analyses of the official documents in question. It aims to provide a better understanding of the conceptual matches between the “5 Ps” of sustainable development and the two sustainability reporting frameworks (IR and GRI) by breaking them down into components and overlapping their constituents to highlight the connections.

The results reveal that both sustainability reporting frameworks provide prerequisites to ensure SDGs achievement due to the embedded sustainability issues. As there are more matches between SDGs and the capitals implied in the pursuit of value creation, IR better fits to become part of the sustainable development strategy as a valuable option for reporting on SDGs.

The study addresses academia through a better understanding of the connections between SDGs and sustainability reporting. It might help regulators to improve their latest efforts to enhance transparency and comparability through the enactment of Directive 2014/95, as long as it has not imposed a standardised report yet. It could guide practitioners to face future challenges and support their steps towards standardised reporting practices.

This paper approaches the newsworthy topic of sustainable development, outlining a conceptual model meant to support the SDGs achievement through appropriate standardised reporting. It might also fill the gap of the Directive 2014/95 on non-financial information disclosure as it identifies the most suitable type of reporting to enhance the harmonisation at the European level.

There are still many different theoretical approaches and practical interpretations about what an integrated report is. Starting from this premise, the overall purpose of this chapter is to critically analyze the relationship between integrated reporting (IR) and social/sustainability disclosure. Indeed, although some scholars considered IR as a tool to improve the sustainability approach of the companies allowing to disclose more relevant social information, others are more critical about the potentiality of IR to improve social disclosure. Therefore, the general research question is: Is there a natural link between IR and social disclosure (true love) or is the IR a practice to “normalize” the social disclosure and accounting (forced marriage)?

In the attempt to provide a preliminary answer to the research question, the chapter analyzes what is the approach of three categories: (1) academics; (2) soft-regulators; and (3) companies. From the methodological point of view, a mixed method of analysis has been adopted.

From the analysis of the three different points of view, IR can be considered as a “contested concept” because of the heterogeneous and sometimes conflicting interpretations and implementation that are done on this type of report. This leads to relevant theoretical and practical implications.

This chapter presents a new conceptual framework of institutional research (IR). The framework refines previously studied dimensions of IR and integrates them into the higher order concept of knowledge management. Previously studied dimensions of IR include the institution’s organizational sectors (e.g., academic, human resources), the functions for which information is used (e.g., operations, strategic management), and the resources supporting IR (e.g., technology, funding). The framework innovates by specifying what competencies are required to carry out IR activities and how to assign a level of development to each competency. This operationalization permits the creation of an assessment tool enabling us to move from general and intuitive statements about development to specific and behavioral levels which are actionable. The framework formulation was validated with a group of IR experts in Chile. The framework can be used to assess one institution, to compare an institution to a peer group, or to compare groups of institutions at the regional, national, or international levels.

This study aims to provide a critical assessment of developments in the field of voluntary corporate non-financial and sustainability reporting and disclosure (VRD). The assessment is grounded in the empirical material of a three-year research project on integrated reporting (IR).

Alvesson and Deetz’s (2021) critical management framework structures the arguments in this paper. By investigating local phenomena and the extant literature, the authors glean insights that they later critique, drawing on the empirical evidence collected during the research project. Transformative redefinitions are then proposed that point to future opportunities for research on voluntary organisational disclosures.

The authors argue that the mainstream approaches to VRD, namely, incremental information and legitimacy theories, present shortcomings in addressing why and how organisations voluntarily disclose information. First, the authors find that companies adopting the International IR Council’s (IIRC, 2021) IR framework tend to comply with the framework only in an informal, rather than a substantial way. Second, the authors find that, at times, organisations serendipitously chance upon VRD practices such as IR instead of rationally recognising the potential ability of such practices to provide useful information for decision-making by investors. Also, powerful groups in organisations may use VRD practices to establish, maintain or restore power balances in their favour.

The paper’s limitations stem directly from its aim to be a critical reflection. Even when grounded on empirics, a reflection is mainly a subjective effort. Therefore, different researchers could come to different conclusions and offer different lessons from the two case studies.

The different rationales the authors found for VRD should make a case for reporting institutions to tone down any investor-centric rhetoric in favour of more substantial disclosures. The findings imply that reporting organisations should approach the different frameworks with a critical eye and read between the lines of these frameworks to determine whether the purported normative arguments are achievable practice.

The authors reflect on timely and relevant issues linked to recent developments in the VRD landscape. Further, the authors offer possible ways forward for critical research that may rely on different methodological choices, such as interventionist and post-structuralist research.

This study is an analysis that aims to understand the rationale behind the concept of value creation contained in the integrated reporting (IR) framework. As such, the authors examined the quality of the disclosures made in integrated reports by measuring the level to which the six capitals (6Cs) have been integrated into disclosures on value creation.

The IR framework’s value creation model focuses on six content elements and three guiding principles. Hence, the present analysis combines content analysis with quantitative measures in the form of a bespoke Integrated Disclosure Index. The index measures the level of integration found in the disclosures instead of the mere presence or absence of mentioned capitals, content elements and guiding principles in isolation. The present sample comprised the 2016 integrated/sustainability reports for 184 listed companies sourced from the Integrated Reporting Examples Database.

The 6Cs are well disclosed in form but only partially disclosed in substance. Further, overall levels of integration between the capitals, the content elements and the guiding principles are higher than average. Disclosures on materiality, business models and stakeholder relationships are somewhat lacking, as are the related medium- and long-term disclosures on outlook.

The paper contributes to the academic debate on IR by building a case for holistically assessing the substance of integrated reports. Considering that the IR value creation model can underpin and align with the 17 UN sustainable development goals, the authors show how the fundamental concept of the 6Cs sustaining value creation is understood and implemented differently across the various elements and principles of the IR framework.

This research also provides guidance for overcoming some of the practical hurdles associated with assessing the quality of reports because the authors provide tools for spotlighting the substance of disclosures over their form.

This paper delves into the substance of integrated reports by assessing how well the 6Cs have been integrated into disclosures on the content elements and guiding principles of the IR framework. In contrast to previous IR research that has mainly analysed capital, elements and principles in isolation, the authors develop an index assessing the integration of these three fundamental concepts of IR.

The purpose of this paper is to further develop the epistemological base of interventionist research (IR) as a valid accounting and management research methodology, through the identification of intervention theory and an IR framework derived from social sciences. Moreover, this paper seeks to contribute to empirical knowledge of IR through a critical review of limited empirical evidence relating to intervention theory and the extant IR frameworks derived from action research.

Texts and academic journal papers that judiciously review intervention theory, intervention research frameworks were identified systematically; along with empirical research addressing theoretical and methodological deficiencies of IR and, providing evidence to inform practical considerations when undertaking IR.

The key findings include rare empirical evidence addressing theoretical shortcomings and application of intervention theory, an IR framework derived from social sciences with extremely limited use in accounting and management research, deficiencies in action research oriented frameworks labelled as alternative forms of IR, an alternate perspective to positivistic validity and reliability issues and other practical considerations to facilitate the conducting of IR.

The novelty of this paper lies in the diminution of the fragmented nature of IR that undermines its scientific value through the identification of an intervention theory and IR framework experiencing extremely limited use in accounting and management research, with the exception of a cross‐disciplinary (management accounting and information systems) doctoral study, optimising IR utilisation with greater degrees of validity and reliability and, finally, a proposed alternative research design for utilisation in IR.