Search results

The study aims to examine whether a baseline trait-level characteristic, in this case propensity to trust, impacts peoples' perception of procedural justice, police legitimacy, trustworthiness, obligation to obey and cooperation.

Using Hamm and colleagues' (2017) integrated framework of legitimacy (IFL) as the theoretical framework, the current research explores whether individual trait characteristic differences matter. Using a Korean survey in 2019 with 2188 samples aged 19 to 28, this study conducted structural equation modeling to assess the impact of propensity to trust on the latent factors of the IFL.

The results support the findings of the original IFL. Specifically, when it comes to citizens' perception of police legitimacy, propensity to trust positively and significantly impacts latent factors such as procedural justice, trustworthiness, trust and obligation to obey. However, it fails to impact cooperation in any capacity.

Perception of police legitimacy has been researched extensively by various scholars. Specifically, Tyler's (1990) procedural justice model has been the main focus of police legitimacy research for the past 30 years. However, the current study aims to explore the possibility of trait-level characteristic that may influence peoples' perception of police legitimacy. Specifically, the authors aim to assess individual propensity to trust tendency and its impact on police legitimacy.

The majority of legitimacy research has been conducted in low-power distance societies such as America, England, Australia, etc. We test the relative impact of normative and instrumental judgments on police legitimacy in a high-power distance society. It is hypothesized that in this context, individuals in high-power distance societies, such as South Korea, will put a larger emphasis on the instrumental model of legitimacy and less on the relational model of legitimacy.

This study examines the pathways to police legitimacy and cooperation. Using a convenience sample of Korean college students, the impact of instrumental and normative pathways on the perception of police legitimacy is examined. Based on Hofstede's (2001) power-distance theory, we hypothesize that South Koreans, with relatively high-power distance, should emphasize the instrumental pathway of police legitimacy more compared to the normative pathway of police legitimacy.

The results indicated that opposite to what we have hypothesized, South Korean college students still emphasized the normative pathways to police legitimacy more importantly. While procedural justice significantly predicted both trustworthiness and obligation to obey the police, police effectiveness only significantly predicted trustworthiness and failed to predict obligation to obey.

The majority of police legitimacy research has been conducted in the Western context. A small amount of research focusing on non-Western settings has been conducted, but still requires more attention. The current research adds to the body of police legitimacy literature in the Korean context. Implications for future research and policy are discussed.

This paper aims to develop a conceptual framework for extended external reporting (EER) influences (EERI), including sustainability, non-financial, integrated and value reporting. Using the Environmental Legitimacy, Accountability, and Proactivity (ELAP) framework as the base, we modify its proposed concepts and linkages using relevant conceptual models, prior reviews and findings of recent studies on EER. This paper presents contributions of the special issue on “non-financial and integrated reporting, governance and value creation” and avenues for future research.

Drawing on relevant conceptual models, prior reviews and recent EER studies, we reframed the ELAP framework into a framework that theorises the factors that affects, or are affected by, EER.

The EERI framework poses relationships between and within proactivity, external verification, accountability and legitimacy. It also consolidates possible determinants and consequences of EER. The papers published in this special issue contribute further insights on factors that influence reporting practices, processes and suggestions for capturing and communicating value creation information, and the value of integrated reports and assurance to capital providers.

Along with the insights provided by papers in this special issue, the conceptual framework can be used to theorise influences of EER and guide future research.

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.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the multiplicity of views on integrated reporting and to consider the possibility of, and impediments to, reconciling these multiple rationales (“orders of worth”) and thus gain legitimacy through a compromise. This sheds light on the understanding of integrated reporting as such, as well as shows how legitimacy struggles are resolved in practice around complex accounting practices in heterogeneous environments.

This explorative paper empirically applies Boltanski and Thévenot's sociology of worth (SOW) framework to analyse integrated reporting in the Dutch reporting field. Data were collected using multiple methods, including 64 semi-structured in-depth interviews with a wide range of relevant actors, and documentary analysis. Data were coded for the presence of orders of worth and legitimating compromise mechanisms.

The author's analysis suggests that integrated reporting combines the disparate domains of industrial, market, civic and green order of worth. These different logics of valuation need to be reconciled in a compromise in order for integrated reporting to become a legitimate practice. Such a compromise requires a common interest, avoidance of clarification and maintenance of ambiguity. The author's analysis suggests these mechanisms are violated though, with the risk that integrated reporting gets captured by investors and accountants, leading to local private arrangements rather than durable legitimate compromise.

First, SOW informs the understanding of integrated reporting. It highlights in particular its fragility as fundamentally different rationales need to be reconciled, which is a challenge yet also gives rise to creative frictions. Second, the SOW framework creates the possibility for scholars to look closer at the dynamics of legitimacy and at the possible mechanisms to attain legitimacy in fragmented and heterogeneous environment.

The SOW framework offers tools for practitioners, in particular those working within a pluralistic context. The various mechanisms of compromise discussed in this paper provide practical guidelines for how to manage this complexity and gain or maintain legitimacy.

This rich empirical study combines a novel theoretical approach (the SOW framework) with an analysis of the relatively unexplored topic of integrated reporting. At the same time it introduces a conceptualisation of legitimacy that highlights communicative and constitutive dialogue and goes beyond fit and compliance.

This study aims to investigate the role of institutional and stakeholder interaction in the development of integrated reporting policy by the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC). It helps advance the theory of integrated reporting and offers insights into its fundamental concepts and relevant issues.

A flexible pattern-matching qualitative research approach is used and an analytical framework of integrated reporting historical foundations and conceptual background is developed. An IIRC case analysis is conducted by using a chronological content analysis of the International Integrated Reporting Framework and related initiatives and publications for integrated reporting policy pronouncements.

Institutional and stakeholder pressures within both the organization’s macro and micro contexts have played an effective role in transforming corporate reporting practices. In an integrated reporting context, institutional forces of normative and mimetic isomorphism seem to have more influence on organizations than coercive pressures, where stakeholder pressures with limited official power derive influence from their legitimacy while urgency is evidently implied. Findings indicate that integrated reporting policy has emerged analogously with the institutional environment and stakeholders’ expectations. The distinct nature of integrated reporting has caused a paradigm shift from silo thinking of wealth creation to integrated thinking of value creation.

This is an exploratory study that does not consider different prominent integrated reporting models. It has important implications for policymakers in articulating the integration of financial and nonfinancial metrics for reporting overall corporate performance. It can help academics build on integrated reporting foundations for conducting future research and assist practitioners in operationalizing integrated reporting policy into practice. Moreover, it has potential prospects for international business in developing integrated reporting policies and strategies aimed at creating mutual value in specific international contexts.

Integrated reporting represents a new internationally developing reporting trend with distinct reporting features and foundations for value creation. The study provides considerable addition to emerging research into the growing awareness of integrated reporting policy, develops a conceptual model of institutional and stakeholder interaction and theorizes on such interplay, identifies the potential influences under which integrated reporting is likely to occur and offers key insights into integrated reporting policy. Hence, it contributes to the ongoing global challenge of promoting the reporting transition to integrated reporting and its perceived future endorsement.

This paper aims to explore the complete process and underlying mechanism that social enterprises obtain legitimacy during interactions with stakeholders from theoretical integration of institutional theory and organization ecology perspective.

Based on theoretical classification, this paper selects six typical Chinese social enterprises and conducts a multi-case analysis.

The study finds that social enterprises aim at legitimizing single entity or industry and shaping stakeholders’ cognitive boundary simultaneously. Therefore, by adopting constrained cooperation and competition activities, social enterprises use normative isomorphism to achieve personal legitimation and combining ecological niche construction, social enterprises achieve organizational legitimation. By adopting fragmented cooperation-dominant or competition-dominant activities, social enterprises use mimic isomorphism supplemented by competitive isomorphism or population structure creation to obtain industry legitimation. By adopting dynamically integrated coopetition activities, social enterprises use mimic isomorphism and reflexive isomorphism to reach field legitimation.

This paper proposes a mechanism model that the coopetition with stakeholders influences the legitimation process, identifies four stages of social enterprise’s legitimation process and the types of legitimacy obtained in each stage and fills the gap of Chinese indigenous social enterprise research.

The International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) has promulgated the production of integrated reports to enhance transparency and encourage improved stakeholder relationships. The purpose of this study/paper is to explore how managers prioritize the needs of stakeholders and to what extent integrated reporting is associated with those stakeholder relationships.

The paper uses a case study/interpretative approach to compare the underlying motivation for the preparation of an integrated report across three case study sites from three different industry groups. Face-to-face and telephone semi-structured interviews, email correspondence and a review of the integrated reports form the basis for the data collection and analysis.

The case studies investigated for this project provide evidence that integrated reporting did motivate further stakeholder engagement to increase the organizations’ legitimacy and transparency. Overall, the authors found that the three case study organizations used the production of an integrated report to cement their place as a “leader” in their respective industry group. Moreover, managers regarded the current statutory accounts as inadequate in communicating and engaging with a broad range of stakeholders. There were elements of enhancing, defending and repairing legitimacy and managers tended to equate legitimacy with transparency.

Three case study sites were selected on the basis of producing exemplary integrated reports, and senior executives provided their views on stakeholder engagement. For the scope of this study, the stakeholders themselves were not involved in this investigation which can be viewed as a limitation.

The international IIRC Framework is built upon the notion that stakeholders are integral to assisting the organization in creating value. The outcomes of this investigation suggest that for preparers, the incumbent organization is reliant on the leadership of senior managers (inclusive of the chief executive officer) and directors to actually instigate the process. In Australia and New Zealand, given that integrated reporting is not mandatory, regulators have no influence over the scope, content and veracity of integrated reports. It seems likely that further stakeholder engagement will become intrinsic to the business model of organizations as a means to quell any notion that it is engaging in greenwashing.

The value of this paper is to contrast how three quite distinct organizations are using their integrated reports to communicate their approach to stakeholder engagement. Stakeholder salience dimensions are used to explore the importance attributed by senior managers.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the trend of integrated reporting (IR) practice following the introduction of an “apply or explain” IR requirement in South Africa. In particular, the authors examine whether the IR practice is ceremonial or substantive in the context of a soft regulatory environment.

By way of content analyses, the authors examine the extent and quality of IR practice using an IR checklist developed based on normative understanding of existing IR guidelines. The evidence is drawn from 246 integrated reports of large South African companies over a three-year period (2011-2013), following the introduction of IR requirement in South Africa.

The results show a significant increase in the extent and quality of IR practice. The findings also reveal significant improvements in individual IR categories such as connectivity of information, materiality determination process and reliability and completeness of the integrated reports. However, despite the increasing trend and evidence of both symbolic and substantive IR practice, the authors conclude that the current IR practice is largely ceremonial in nature, produced to acquire organisational legitimacy.

For academics, the authors argue that there is a need to move away from the “what” and “why” aspects of the IR agenda to “how” IR should work inside organisations. In particular, academics should engage with firms through interventionist research to help firms implement integrated thinking and substantive reporting practices. For organisations, the findings draw attention to specific aspects of IR that require improvement. For policymakers, the study provides evidence based on the developmental stage of IR practice and draws attention to certain areas that need clarification. In particular, the International Integrated Reporting Council and Integrated Reporting Committee of South Africa should provide detailed guidelines on connectivity of information, material issues and disclosure of multiple capitals and their trade-offs. Finally, for educators, in line with the ACCA’s embedment of IR in its accounting courses, there is a need to incorporate IR in the curriculum; in particular, the authors argue that the best way to advance IR is in a “ubiquitous” spread in accounting and management courses.

This study provides empirical account of IR practice over time in the context of a regulatory IR environment. The construction of an IR checklist developed based on normative understanding of local and international IR guidelines is another novel approach of this study.

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.