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.

This study aims to examine whether the integrated reports prepared in accordance with the King III Code of corporate governance regulation are providing the information intended of an integrated report, i.e. to communicate the “ability of an organisation to create and sustain value”. Second, it explains the behaviour of companies listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE) when responding to the regulation to publish an integrated report. The King III Code of corporate governance requires companies listed on the JSE to prepare annually an integrated report or provide reasons for not doing so.

This paper uses legitimacy theory to formulate two alternative propositions on how JSE-listed companies may disclose information relating to a number of capitals, as described by the International Integrated Reporting Committee, in response to the King III Code. Annual/integrated reports of the top 25 JSE listed companies for the years 2009/2010 and 2011/2012 are content-analysed for the presence of information on capitals. The change in the extent of disclosure of capitals is analysed using t-tests to test the propositions.

The results show that the introduction of integrated reporting in South Africa has resulted in an increase in the extent of disclosure of human, social and relational, natural and intellectual capital information of the listed companies. The increment in the disclosure of social and relational capital is statistically significantly greater than the increment in the disclosure of other capitals. The findings indicate that JSE-listed companies are adopting a legitimation strategy based on symbolic management when preparing integrated reports.

This study sheds light on the relevance of regulating corporate reporting within a setting where companies are already voluntarily reporting on social, environmental, human, intellectual and natural capital information. Findings have implications for policymakers who have mandated or considering mandating integrated reporting. To the South African policymakers, in particular, this study highlights the need for incorporating, within the listing rules, minimum requirements in relation to the nature and content of an integrated report.

This paper provides the first initial evidence on the impact of the introduction of integrated reporting regulation, followed by limited guidance to preparers, on the nature and extent of disclosure of capitals. This study extends the work of Solomon and Maroun (2012) by explaining disclosure practices of South African-listed companies in relation to information on relational, human and intellectual capital.

Human capital is considered by many to be a firm's most important asset. However, because no international human capital reporting framework exists, firms can decide to include/exclude human capital details on annual reports. Based on legitimacy theory, firms that disclose high levels of human capital information can be considered congruent with the expectations of society. However, firms can also choose to include human capital information on annual reports for symbolic purposes as an image management strategy.

Using 2018 as a sample period, content analysis is used to evaluate the annual reports of the 25 largest British and 25 largest Korean firms to demonstrate the propensity of British/Korean firms to disclose human capital information as numerical and textual data.

The authors report that South Korean firms provide high levels of human capital information using narrative and numerical data, including value added human capital elements included on integrated reports. British firms on the other hand tend to use primarily positive narrative and limited numerical human capital data to present human capital information.

The results imply South Korean firms provide robust human capital information on annual reports as a legitimacy strategy. On the other hand, the UK's human capital reporting requirement can be considered as a form of image management. The results therefore have important policy implications for legislators, labour unions and firm stakeholders with incentives to enhance human capital information transparency.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the relationships of company characteristics to intellectual capital (IC) reporting in a mandatory management report. Based on the relevant regulation in Germany, IC components of the mandatory management report can be characterised as being partially required, partially recommended and partially voluntary.

A content analysis of 428 group management reports of listed German companies was conducted for required, recommended and voluntary IC reporting. To investigate the relationship of certain company characteristics to IC reporting, this study conducted a regression analysis considering company returns, size and industry.

The findings show that structural capital dominates total IC reporting in Germany. This observation is in contrast to prior literature, in which relational capital has been found to be most frequently reported. However within the sub-group of voluntary IC reporting in German companies, relational capital has the highest proportion. The regression results show that company returns show no effect on IC reporting, but size and industry group are significantly related to IC reporting.

The findings indicate that IC reporting requirements and the relatively stringent German regulatory recommendations influence corporate IC reporting behaviour. The findings provide a basis for further discussion by standard setters regarding the extent to which requirements and recommendations on individual IC components seem to encourage IC reporting.

This study utilises the unique research setting in Germany with a mandated management report to distinguish between required, recommended and voluntary IC reporting.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the implications of IR reforms in South Africa on corporate disclosure practices of South African companies. In particular, the authors explore initial trends in corporate disclosures following the adoption of IR practice.

Drawing from Suchman’s (1995) framework of strategic and institutional legitimacy, the authors use content analysis to examine corporate disclosure practices. The authors conduct industry-specific analyses based on various industries to explore corporate disclosures practices across and within various industries in South Africa. The evidence is drawn from 246 integrated reports of large South African companies across six major industries over a three-year period (2011-2013), a period following the introduction of an “apply or explain” IR requirement in South Africa.

The results first show a significant increase in the overall amount of corporate disclosures following the adoption of IR practice. In particular, the authors find that intellectual capital and human capital disclosure categories have increased over time, with relational capital disclosures showing a decreasing trend. Second, the authors find that corporate disclosures are increasingly becoming institutionalised over time across and within industries following the adoption of IR practice. However, companies fail to provide meaningful disclosures on the interdependencies and trade-offs between the capitals, or components of a capital following the adoption of IR practice. Overall, the authors find that companies use specific disclosure strategies to respond to external pressures (strategic legitimacy), and that such disclosure strategies are increasingly becoming institutionalised across and within various industries (institutional legitimacy).

The theoretical implication of this study is that the strategic and institutional perspectives of legitimacy theory are complementary, rather than conflicting, and dovetail to explain corporate reporting practices. In terms of practical implications, the adoption of specific reporting frameworks such as the emerging IR framework is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, such reporting frameworks could potentially enhance comparability and consistency of organisational reports across and within industries. On the other hand, corporate reports could become a set of monotonous reports motivated by considerations other organisational accountability. Hence, to overcome the latter, this study emphasises the importance of specific accountability metrics and reporting guidelines, rather than the current generic IR guidelines, to enhance organisational reporting practices.

The paper’s longitudinal analysis of a large sample of integrated reports following the adoption of IR practice has the potential to inform growing academic research and ongoing policy initiatives for the emerging IR agenda.

There is a current agitation by community leaders, global leaders and society on the morality aspect of corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities of firms. The change in policy raises the question of whether moral capital is affected. Therefore, this study aims to examine whether the shift from voluntary to mandatory reporting increases the moral capital of CSR and also whether moral capital affects the firm performance of listed firms in India.

This study examines 800 firm-year observations on the Bombay Stock Exchange (split into 320 firm-year observations for the voluntary period and 480 firm-year observations for the mandatory period). This study uses panel regression with random effect assumptions for data interpretation.

The first findings show that a shift from voluntary to mandatory policy on CSR increases the moral capital value of listed firms in India. The second and third findings show that voluntary reporting of moral capital has no significant association with market performance (stock price returns [SPR]) or firm value (Tobin’s q). The fourth findings show a negative and statistically significant association between mandatory reporting of moral capital and SPR but an insignificant association with Tobin’s q. This study conducted a robustness test, and results show that the previous year 1 and 2 moral capital for voluntary and mandatory periods has no association with SPR and Tobin’s q.

Although prior research has examined the effect of change in policy from voluntary to mandatory reporting on firm performance, little is known about the impact of moral capital on firm performance for the emerging economies, including India.

The purpose of this paper is to examine “how” the adoption of integrated reporting (IR), and the embedded multiple capitals framework, has influenced organisational reporting practice. In particular, the paper examines how companies report and integrate multiple capitals in various organisational reporting channels following the introduction of an “apply or explain” IR requirement in South Africa.

Using a qualitative case study approach based on discourse analysis, this paper examines various organisational reports including integrated reports, standalone sustainability reports, websites and other online materials of highly regarded, award-winning, integrated reporters in South Africa over a four-year period (2011-2014), following the introduction of IR requirement. The authors draw five impression management techniques, namely, rhetorical manipulation, thematic manipulation, selectivity, emphasis in visual presentation and performance comparisons to explain disclosure and integration of multiple capitals.

The authors find that companies are increasingly conforming to reporting language espoused in existing IR guidelines and multiple capital frameworks over time. For instance, it is found that the research cases have increasingly used specific grammars in existing IR guidelines such as “capitals” and “material” issues, with companies acknowledging the “interdependencies” and “trade-offs” between multiple capitals. Companies have also started to recognise that the capitals are subject to “increases, decreases, and transformations” over time. However, the disclosures are generic, rather than company-specific, and lack substance, often framed in synthetic charming aimed to showcase adoption of IR practice. In addition, the current discourse on multiple capital disclosures is one of the defending, even promoting, organisational reputation, rather than recognising how organisational actions, or inactions, impact multiple capitals. The paper concludes that the emerging IR practice, and the embedded multiple capital framework, has not really improved the substance of organisational reports.

The results of this study have a number of implications for regulatory authorities, public and private sector organisations as well as academic researchers. For regulatory authorities, the results inform relevant regulatory authorities how IR practice is taking shape over time, particularly within the context of a regulatory setting. Second, the empirical analyses, which focused on highly regarded, award-wining, integrated reporters, draw the attention of regulatory bodies as well as users of corporate reports to concerns related to a growing number of rating agencies of organisational reports. Finally, for academic researchers, the theoretical implications of this study is that, given the pervasive use of multiple impression management techniques in various organisational reports, the authors support the notion that corporate disclosure practices should be examined through the lens of multiple theoretical perspectives to enhance our understanding of the nature of organisational reporting practice.

This study provides a more focused preliminary empirical account of the implications of IR practice, and the embedded multiple capital frameworks, on the quality of organisational reporting practice following the adoption of mandatory IR requirement in South Africa.

Given the significant role of both integrated reporting and cost of capital in the survival and prosperity of a firm, it is essential to understand their relationship by investigating whether integrated reporting influences the cost of capital of a firm. This research paper aims to examine the impact of integrated reporting practice on the cost of capital of listed firms in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA).

The study covered a period of 10 years from 2009 to 2018. One hundred and forty-seven listed firms in 10 SSA countries were used for the study. The study employed panel data analysis and utilised a dynamic estimation technique called the generalised method of moments.

The evidence shows that integrated reporting has a negative relationship with cost of capital, indicating integrated reporting can reduce firms' cost of capital. The results further showed that social, governance and environmental disclosures all have negative relationships with cost of capital, suggesting that firms that make these disclosures would have a lower cost of capital. These results are consistent with signalling theory, which holds that firms send a positive signal to the market about their performance and prospects when they provide information relating to value creation, predominantly environmental, social and governance issues.

The major limitation of the study is the selection of only English-speaking countries. French-speaking countries may have a different reporting practice, hence a different effect on the cost of capital.

This study contributes to policy development on integrated reporting in SSA and informs key stakeholders involved in promoting and supporting the adoption of integrated reporting in Africa.

The findings from this paper consolidate existing research in integrated reporting and cost of capital by providing empirical evidence on the relationship between integrated reporting, its components and the cost of capital from emerging economies. This study contributes to the understanding of investors' reactions to integrated reporting. Further, it fills a gap in the non-availability of literature on the relative impact of the various components of integrated reporting.

A change in leadership can signal a shift in corporate strategy to drive future value creation. To help achieve this, a different emphasis may be placed upon the intellectual capital (IC) resources within the organisation. The purpose of this paper is to examine the changes in volume, composition and emphasis of IC disclosure in annual reports mapped against the re-orientation of corporate strategy and associated leadership change.

A longitudinal period of over three decades (1979-2010) is examined. Adopting a case-based approach, Daimler AG is purposively selected for this research having a number of distinct changes in strategy over the period, reflective of leadership change. Using content analysis, annual report IC-related disclosures (structural, relational and human capital) by Daimler AG are examined, by category and more detailed sub-categories, against corporate strategy.

The composition and emphasis of IC disclosures found in the annual reports changes over the longitudinal period and is reflective of the prevailing corporate strategy at that time. There were four identified periods of strategy, each associated with leadership change. The prevalence and qualitative focus of IC disclosures relevant to each period reflects the importance of respective IC components in corporate value creation.

The research is based on annual report IC disclosures within one case company and hence reflect the messages conveyed by that company over the longitudinal period. Additionally, the authors recognise that the annual report is only one source of corporate information, but as a historic record it serves to consistently capture management disclosure over a long-time period. Future research, adopting an econometric approach, could further test the linkages between leadership change, strategic shift and IC-related disclosure.

The research reveals how IC-related disclosure shifts to reflect leadership and strategic change within a case company. Through such disclosure, the authors are able to gain greater insight into how a specific business seeks to create value drawing on the components of IC underpinning corporate strategy.

The research provides new insights into IC disclosure by mapping its content and emphasis against changes in corporate strategy. This has contemporary significance due to the wider disclosure debate concerning strategy and value creation in the annual report, for instance through integrated reporting. Further, the research shows the value of annual reports for longitudinal disclosure research.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the quality of voluntary intellectual capital (IC) by universities in New Zealand, Australia, and the UK.

An IC framework was developed to measure IC reporting in the university sector. Content analysis was used to analyse the 2011 annual reports before a three-year comparative analysis of 90 universities (eight New Zealand universities, 38 Australian universities, and 44 UK universities) was undertaken.

New Zealand and Australian universities outperformed the UK universities in terms of IC disclosures. Additionally, the study found moderate increases in the levels of IC disclosures over the period of the study. The quality of IC disclosures by New Zealand universities was generally higher than their Australian and UK counterparts. Internal capital and human capital were the most disclosed categories with external capital being the least frequently disclosed in all three countries. However, the quality of external capital disclosures was higher than internal and human capital. Finally, most IC disclosures were narrative in nature.

The framework developed in this study could be adapted, further enhanced, and then applied to exploring IC disclosures in higher educational institutes in other jurisdictions.

This is the first comparative analysis of IC disclosures made by universities in three countries.