Search results

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 aim of this study is to evaluate the adoption and quality of integrated reports in the European Union (EU).

The sample consists of 147 listed firms from the 18 EU countries during 2013–2020. This study creates a disclosure index – based on the balanced scorecard (BSC) that reflects the information content of integrated reports. The content analysis method is used to measure the integrated reporting quality (IRQ).

The findings demonstrate that the IRQ increased across the study’s time frame, going from 49.3% in 2013 to 77% in 2020. Furthermore, financial disclosures still get the most attention in the integrated reporting (IR), followed by learning and growth perspective disclosures. In addition, businesses in the financial and industrial sectors rely more on integrated reports. However, the utility sector has the highest IRQ score. By country, Spain has the highest rate of IR adoption, followed by France. Other countries, such as Austria and Hungary, have only implemented IR by one company each.

This study adds to the IR literature a new approach to measure IRQ by linking BSC with the IR framework. Empirically, businesses of any size can use this method to assess the degree of balance between the revealed financial and nonfinancial information in their reports.

Empirically, this study helps IR practitioners in determining how widely IR is used in Europe and in updating the database on the IR website. It helps them update and improve the IR framework by identifying the elements that have the least transparency and quality, investigating the causes and enhancing them.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to examine the IRQ in EU countries by linking the BSC with IR elements. This is to split the elements into their own pillars, making it easier to track disclosure and evaluate the corporations’ interest in revealing these perspectives, on their own and collectively.

Anyone seeking to influence another is a potential leader. Within higher education, determining what an institution should undertake on sustainability can be daunting. Sustainability leaders face labyrinthine, multifaceted sub-cultures, influencers and viewpoints across staff, students, government, business and alumni all with an opinion on whether, how and in what order of priority sustainability should be taken forward. In this paper we take on this challenge by synthesising and critically evaluating core principles and working models for influencing and leading for sustainability in higher education. We identify a series of eight challenges affecting delivery of sustainability and seek to understand how conceptual models and principles in sustainability decision-making and leadership could address these. We draw on the experience of both authors, in tandem with comments from workshop and leadership training programme participants who attended the Environmental Association for Universities and Colleges (EAUC) Leadership Lab training in the UK, as well as reflections arising in a detailed case study from the University of Edinburgh. We bring key insights from theory and practice for the benefits of individuals or teams seeking to influence and persuade key decision-makers to embrace the sustainability agenda.

This study aims to examine how integrated thinking principles can be used to assist those charged with governance during and after a crisis.

An autoethnographic approach was used to collect and reflect on information related to the economic, social and environmental impact of COVID-19. This was complemented with a bibliometric analysis of academic articles including “corporate governance”, “integrated thinking” and “crisis” as a keyword. This information was used to produce a data mind map of core themes. This was supplemented with a qualitative exploratory approach based on semi-structured interviews with 16 participants comprising preparers of financial statements, board members and corporate governance specialists to obtain insights into using integrated thinking in corporate governance during a crisis.

The results of the study indicate that those charged with governance can use integrated thinking to repurpose their business model by considering a multi-capital and multi-stakeholder perspective to value creation. The study highlights the importance of implementing a holistic capital integration process to gauge risks, capitalise on opportunities and improve business processes in response to a crisis. This can be leveraged by both the private and public sectors to manage a crisis and deal with the long-term indirect impacts of a crisis.

An integrated thinking approach can be used by both the private and public sectors to bolster confidence, tackle pressing social and environmental challenges and contribute to improved performance relative to the sector.

The expert interviews contribute empirical evidence to the profile of mainstream social and environmental accounting literature and offer a practical contribution by offering insights that can directly be used by organisations’ investors, non-governmental organisations and other stakeholders to manage a crisis. This paper also advances the sustainability agenda by assessing how a crisis can be managed in the context of a developing economy and advancing normative recommendations which will be broadly applicable to an international audience.

Establishing integrated reporting and thinking within mainstream business practice as the norm in the public and private sectors is fundamental. Corporate governance assessment in the APRM Country Review Reports is not done in a way to enable more decision-useful reporting. This policy brief urges APRM's consultants to adopt a particular approach to frame corporate governance assessment. By adopting an inductive qualitative approach, retrieving academic articles and institutions' reports from the literature, this study develops a novel framework to ensure more reliability, completeness, consistency and comparability in the Country Review reporting. It is contended that such reporting can assist the APRM Country Review Missions in corporate governance assessment.

Over the past decade, researchers have witnessed an exponential growth in the number of publications on IR. This paper aims to understand the state of the art of the research field and to highlight the areas where further academic research is needed, guiding developments in theory, research, policy and practices.

The authors apply the dynamic literature review method called “Systematic Literature Network Analysis”, which combines systematic literature review and bibliographic network analysis. Furthermore, to overcome some of the limitations connected to the methodology, the authors integrate the literature with a manual content analysis of papers.

IR adoption and practices and their determinants represent the most analyzed aspects of literature. Over time, attention has been paid to more specific issues, such as the relationship between IR and other disclosure mechanisms, IR quality and its assurance, the critical analysis of the IR framework and principles and difficulties in IR adoption. Although the literature on IR can be considered to be in its mature stage, many aspects are still under-researched, so there is plenty of space for future research.

The authors propose the following main issues as subjects to be investigated in future studies: IR is not simply an evolution of sustainability reporting, but an innovative communication tool; the debate on who the recipients of value are (shareholders or stakeholders) and on what the definition of value adopted by IR is still remains an open issue; more attention should be given to the role of IR as a managerial tool, which could support strategy formation and communication, and influence internal processes of performance measurement and evaluation; what the future of IR will be in light of recent EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive and new ISSB's standards is still an open question. From a methodological perspective, little is known about structured approaches in accounting studies. The authors confirm how methodologies, such as that of this paper, may be exploited as a tool to support dynamic analysis for setting the agendas for future studies in the accounting field.

In 2000, Cañibano et al. published a literature review entitled “Accounting for Intangibles: A Literature Review”. This paper revisits the conclusions drawn in that paper. We also discuss the intervening developments in scholarly research, standard setting and practice over the past 20+ years to outline the future challenges for research into accounting for intangibles.

We conducted a literature review to identify past developments and link the findings to current accounting standard-setting developments to inform our view of the future.

Current intangibles accounting practices are conservative and unlikely to change. Accounting standard setters are more interested in how companies report and disclose the value of intangibles rather than changing how they are determined. Standard setters are also interested in accounting for new forms of digital assets and reporting economic, social, governance and sustainability issues and how these link to financial outcomes. The IFRS has released complementary sustainability accounting standards for disclosing value creation in response to the latter. Therefore, the topic of intangibles stretches beyond merely how intangibles create value but how they are also part of a firm’s overall risk and value creation profile.

There is much room academically, practically, and from a social perspective to influence the future of accounting for intangibles. Accounting standard setters and alternative standards, such as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and European Union non-financial and sustainability reporting directives, are competing complementary initiatives.

Our results reveal a window of opportunity for accounting scholars to research and influence how intangibles and other non-financial and sustainability accounting will progress based on current developments.

Integrated thinking involves a holistic, multi-capital approach to decision-making and operations to promote value creation and sustainability. This paper aims to outline a schematic which can be used to gauge the levels of integrated thinking by organisations.

The researchers partnered with an independent consulting firm (“Sustain-X”) which has developed a tool for evaluating integrated thinking. A two-stage mixed-method design is used to evaluate the tool. Firstly, in keeping with the exploratory nature of the paper, the tool’s integrated thinking principles and indicators are contrasted with findings from an extensive review of the integrated thinking research and interviews with experts on how integrated thinking is understood and operationalised. Secondly, the tool was applied to a sample of South African listed firms’ integrated reports and used to generate integrated thinking scores. These scores are evaluated by testing the strength of their association with other generally accepted proxies for integrated thinking.

The principles of the schematic include integrated awareness and understanding; integrated leadership commitment and capability; integrated structures; integrated organisational performance management; and integrated external communication. Empirical results show that the integrated thinking measures generated using the Sustain-X schematic are aligned with integrated report quality scores and ratings of the sophistication of organisations’ accounting, management and governance structures.

A combination of earlier research findings, detailed interviews (conducted independently of Sustain-X) and a battery of quantitative tests have been used to evaluate the schematic, but more refined testing using additional case studies or ethnographies has been deferred.

The tool offers a practical means for stakeholders to evaluate integrated thinking. It is flexible enough to be used with data collected during private engagements with companies or only publicly available information.

The schematic is one of the first to outline the dimensions of integrated thinking and should be useful for academics and practitioners concerned with the development and application of integrated thinking.

This paper adds to the literature on integrated thinking and answers the call for further research to evaluate integrated thinking practices.

This paper aims to contribute to the development of the European Union (EU) regulatory environment for sustainability reporting by analyzing how materiality is defined in the Non-Financial Reporting Directive (NFRD) and Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and by examining the added value and challenges of legalizing reporting and materiality requirements from both regulatory and practical company perspectives. It provides insights on whether this is reflected by EU pharmaceutical companies and to what extent companies report information on their materiality analysis process.

Doctrinal analysis was used to examine regulatory instruments. Qualitative document analysis was used to analyze companies’ reports. The added value and challenges were examined using a governance approach. It focused on legalizing reporting and materiality requirements, with a brief extension to corporate management and organization studies.

Materiality has evolved from a vague concept in the NFRD toward double materiality in the CSRD. This was reflected by the industry, but reports revealed inconsistencies in materiality definitions and reported information. Challenges include lack of self-reflection and company-centric perceptions of materiality. Companies should explain how they identify relevant stakeholders and how input is considered in decision-making.

Managers must consider how they conduct materiality assessments to meet society’s expectations. The underlying processes should be explained to increase the credibility of reports. Sustainability reporting should be seen as a corporate governance tool.

This work contributes to the literature on materiality in sustainability reporting and to the debate on the need for a holistic, society-centric approach to enhance the sustainability of companies.

This research aims to examine and understand the rationales and modalities behind the use of disclosure before, during and after a corporate governance scandal involving CPA Australia (CPAA).

Data beyond CPAA's annual reports were collected, such as news articles, media releases, an independent review panel (IRP) report, and the Chief Operating Officer's letter to members. These disclosures were manually coded and analysed through the word counts and word trees in NVivo. This study also relied on Norbert Elias' conceptual tool of power games among networks of actors – figurations – to model the scandal as a power game between the old Board, the press, concerned members, the IRP and the new Board. This study analysed the data to reveal a collective and in fieri power balance that changed with the phases of the scandal.

A mix of voluntary, involuntary, requested and absent disclosures was important in triggering, managing and ending the CPAA scandal. Moreover, communication and disclosure fulfilled a constitutive role since both: mobilised actors, enabled coordination among actors, contributed to pursuing shared goals and influenced power balances. Such a constitutive role was at the heart of the ability of coalitions of figurations to challenge and restore the powerful status quo.

This research introduces to accounting studies the collective and in fieri dimensions of power from figurational theory. Moreover, the research sheds new light on using voluntary, involuntary, requested and absent disclosures before, during and after a corporate crisis.