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.

The authors have examined the developments in law and in practice concerning integrated reporting. An integrated report combines the most material elements of information about corporate performance (re: financial, governance, social and environmental functioning) – currently reported in separate reports – into one coherent whole. The authors first explore the motivation of companies and legislators to introduce integrating reporting. Next, they analyse how integrated reporting can be supported by legislation thereby taking into account the existing regulatory environment.

Literature study; desk research, analysing integrated reports; organisation of an international academic conference (30 May 2012 in Rotterdam, the Netherlands).

EU law needs adjusting in the field of corporate annual reporting. Although integrated reporting is currently being explored by some frontrunners of the business community and is being encouraged by investors, the existing legal framework does not offer any incentive, nor is uniformity and credibility in the reporting of non-financial information stimulated. The law gives scant guidance to companies to that end. The authors argue that amending the mandatory EU framework can support the comparability and reliability of the corporate information. Moreover, a clear and sound EU framework on integrated corporate reporting will assist international companies in their reporting. Presently, companies have to comply with various regulations at an EU and a national level, which do not enhance a holistic view in corporate reporting. The authors provide options on how to do this. They suggest combining EU mandatory corporate reporting rules with the private regulatory reporting regime developed by the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI).

Focus on EU and Dutch corporate reporting laws, non-legislative frameworks, and corporate practices of frontrunners.

The chapter can provide guidance to policymakers, companies and other stakeholders who want to form an opinion on how to legally support integrated reporting. It addresses important questions, especially concerning how European and domestic legislation could be adjusted in order to (i) reflect the newest insights regarding corporate transparency and (ii) become an adequate framework for companies with added benefits for financiers and investors. Moreover, it reports on the benefits of integrated reporting for reporting companies. The authors argue that integrated reporting can be a critical tool in implementing corporate social responsibility (CSR) in the main corporate strategy of a company.

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.

This paper aims to investigate the adherence level of current company reports to the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) integrated reporting framework through analysis of whether and to what extent those reports include the content elements of this framework. This study also aims to examine the impact of corporate sustainability characteristics on the adherence level of current company reports to the integrated reporting framework.

The sample for this research comprises the non-financial companies which were listed on Borsa Istanbul, the Turkish stock exchange, as of 31 December 2015. The authors constructed a disclosure index based on the content elements of the IIRC reporting framework. They then measured the integrated reporting disclosure score (IRS) of each company through a manual content analysis of its annual reports and stand-alone sustainability reports. To test the hypotheses, the authors performed a number of statistical analyses.

The authors determined that current company reports mainly present generic risks rather than company-specific; provide positive information while dismissing negative information; present financial and non-financial initiatives separately; lack a strategic focus; and include backward-looking information rather than forward-looking information. Consistent with the predictions, the authors found that the IRS is significantly and positively associated with sustainability reporting, Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) adoption, sustainability index listing and the presence of a sustainability committee.

This study contributes to the literature by enhancing the understanding of integrated reporting practices through the application of a checklist based upon the IIRC integrated reporting framework. Further, this study contributes to the literature by evaluating the impact of corporate sustainability characteristics on IRS.

The purpose of this paper is to examine formal participation in the early phase of the International Integrated Reporting Council’s (IIRC’s) standard-setting. The objective of the paper is to shed light on the characteristics of lobbying parties and the determinants of their lobbying behavior toward the IIRC. Additionally, the most important points of contestation regarding the IIRC’s initial proposal for integrated reporting are identified and discussed.

The authors analyze comment letters issued toward the IIRC’s 2011 discussion paper on the basis of a content analysis. The analysis is guided mainly by Sutton’s (1984) rational-choice model of lobbying and by findings from extant financial accounting lobbying research. The analysis of the data is both quantitative and qualitative.

The paper improves the understanding of the political nature of standard-setting in the context of integrated reporting. Among other things, the authors find that comment letters toward the IIRC’s discussion paper are mainly written by large multinational firms (as opposed to small- and medium-sized ones) and by preparers (as opposed to users). The authors also observe active lobbying by sustainability service firms and professional bodies which tend to take a critical position vis-à-vis the discussion paper’s emphasis on investor needs and shareholder value creation. Moreover, the qualitative analysis reveals that respondents voice different concerns regarding, for instance, the scope of audience of integrated reporting, issues of materiality and the relationship between integrated reporting and other existing reporting frameworks.

The analysis is limited to a consideration of the 2011 discussion paper of the IIRC. The IIRC’s more recent and forthcoming proposals will likely provide a basis to extend the paper’s findings and allow investigation of the role of lobbying for the further development of the framework.

The paper is, to the best of the knowledge, the first one to explore lobbying behavior by means of comment letters in the context of integrated reporting.

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 study aims to summarise the findings of the perceptions of Chief Executive Officers (CEOs), Chief Financial Officers (CFOs) and senior executives of South African listed companies on the perceived benefits and implementation challenges as a result of implementing integrated reporting (IR) requirements, as well as motives for preparing an integrated report; it is performed two years into the South African IR regime,. South African-listed companies are among the first in the world to be subject to compliance with IR requirements in terms of stock exchange listing requirements. IR, as a novel and evolutionary step in corporate reporting, along with the influence that integrated thinking and IR principles will have on companies, has been the subject of global debate in recent years.

The research instrument used in the study comprised a self-administered Web-based survey aimed at CEOs and CFOs of all South African listed companies. The survey was validated by a pre-trail and data analysed by a statistician to ensure reliability.

The study revealed that listed companies, in a mandated regulatory regime implemented in a short period with reference to a highly prescriptive draft framework, attach value to the IR process primarily from the perspective of their corporate reputation, investor needs and stakeholder engagement and relations. This strengthens the business case for voluntary IR as a reporting regime. Advancement of corporate reputation appears to be a key motive to compile an integrated report, secondary to compliance as a primary motive. This indicates the perceived corporate legitimising effect of producing an integrated report. Furthermore, managers are more motivated by the legitimising aspect of advancing corporate reputation and stakeholder needs in compiling the integrated report than satisfying investor needs. This results in a disconnect between the perceived audience of the report by managers and the intended audience of the report as providers of capital as envisioned by the IIRC, which should be a matter for future consideration. Better resource allocation decisions and cost reductions are not indicated as an outcome of IR in the study. Furthermore, substantial changes to management information systems, with associated costs, would be required by companies to satisfy the requirements of the report content. The study revealed that the anticipated benefit of a company reconsidering its business model and encouraging sustainable product development is not perceived to be a material outcome in companies that implement IR, nor is assessing economic value creation and strategy considered a key motive for companies to compile an integrated report.

Further validation of the survey by statistical methods in addition to the pre-trial of the survey was not considered viable by the statistician in view of the limited amount of data. This may be viewed as a potential limitation of the study. Statistical analysis must also be interpreted with caution given the limited amount of data available for analysis. Other limitations include the fact that certain industries are too heavily represented instead of there being a mix of industries representing the entire market listed on the JSE, and that a substantial proportion of the companies are large listed companies and Socially Responsible Investment (SRI) Constituents. As a result, the results may not be representative of the overall market listed on the JSE.

Managers are more motivated by the legitimising aspect of advancing corporate reputation and stakeholder needs in compiling the integrated report than satisfying investor needs, while the intended audience of the report in the framework is the providers of financial capital. This needs to be considered in the future development of regulations and frameworks. Furthermore, policymakers and regulators should exercise caution in the early stages of IR, when there is still a lack of evidence to support significant short-term changes in reconsidering the business model as well as sustainable product development that could be convincingly attributed to mandatory IR. It is, therefore, critical that policymakers, government and regulators strive towards creating a wider enabling environment to advance sustainable product development and sustainable business models. This can include establishing incentives to encourage the development of sustainable products, or other incentives that serve to align business objectives with national and global objectives and frameworks. Industry bodies can play a significant role in developing universal industry standards in this regard. Consideration should further be given to implementing regulatory mechanisms for advancing and possibly enforcing responsible investment practices as a measure to fully engage business in the critical shift towards sustainable business practices.

The study is significant from a global perspective because IR and integrated thinking form a new and globally developing concept and the potential benefits and expected outcomes from an organisational perspective thereof for companies are currently the subject of continued global debate. This study aims to provide valuable insights into and understanding of the perceived organisational benefits of implementing IR requirements, as well as serves to highlight the challenge areas experienced in South African companies by compliance with IR requirements. The study also contributes towards the debate of motives of managers for producing an integrated report and how this will affect future directions.

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.

This study aims to explore factors influencing voluntary adoption of international sustainability and integrated reporting guidelines within a mandatory reporting framework. Given South Africa’s political history, the authors argue that accounting practice can be used to secure the legitimacy and transparency of businesses.

Two logistic regression equations are used to predict the likelihood of firms’ subscribing to either Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) or the Integrated Reporting (<IR>) framework, respectively. The authors consider annual, sustainability and integrated reports issued for the financial year ended 2014.

The results show a statistically and significant positive association between the adoption of the GRI’s guidelines and the level of transparency of non-financial disclosures and environmental sensitiveness. The application of the <IR> framework is also associated with the level of a firm’s transparency score and with its respective analyst following, which acts as a measure for capital markets requiring a high information environment.

This paper illustrates the development of integrated and sustainability reporting (SR) practices within an emerging market. By drawing distinctions between locally developed South African codes of corporate governance, namely, King I-III and international guidelines proxied by the GRI’s guidelines for SR, and the <IR> framework, the authors show that South African firms still adopt international guidelines despite the mandatory framework in place.

Motivated by claims that the International Integrated Reporting Framework (IRF) can be used to comply with Directive 2014/95/EU (the EU Directive) on non-financial and diversity disclosure, the purpose of this study is to examine whether companies can comply with corporate reporting laws using de facto standards or frameworks.

The authors adopted an interpretivist approach to research along with current regulatory studies that aim to investigate business compliance with the law using private sector standards. To support the authors’ arguments, publicly available secondary data sources were used, including newsletters, press releases and websites, reports from key players within the accounting profession, public documents issued by the European Commission and data from corporatergister.com.

To become a de facto standard or framework, a private standard-setter requires the support of corporate regulators to mandate it in a specific national jurisdiction. The de facto standard-setter requires a powerful coalition of actors who can influence the policymakers to allow its adoption and diffusion at a national level to become mandated. Without regulatory support, it is difficult for a private and voluntary reporting standard or framework to be adopted and diffused. Moreover, the authors report that the <IRF> preferences stock market capitalism over sustainability because it privileges organisational sustainability over social and environmental sustainability, emphasises value creation over holding organisations accountable for their impact on society and the environment and privileges the entitlements of providers of financial capital over other stakeholders.

The authors question the suitability of the goals of both the <IRF> and the EU Directive during and after the COVID-19 crisis. The planned changes to both need rethinking as we head into uncharted waters. Moreover, the authors believe that the people cannot afford any more reporting façades.

The authors offer a critical analysis of the link between the <IRF> and the EU Directive and how the <IRF> can be used to comply with the EU Directive. By questioning the relevance of the compliance question, the authors advance a critique about the relevance of these and other legal and de facto frameworks, particularly considering the more pressing needs that must be met to address the economic, social and environmental implications of the COVID-19 crisis.