Search results

The purpose of this paper is to explore the role of accountability in times of exception. The Italian government's account-giving practices are critically analysed with respect to the distinct modes in which duties of accountability are discharged for the exceptional measures taken during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak in early 2020.

This paper draws on an exploratory case study. The case analysis draws primarily on data obtained through publicly available documents and covers the period between January 1 and August 7, 2020.

The paper reveals that the Italian government employed various accountability styles (rebuttal, dismissal, reactive, proactive and coactive). Each style influenced both how the government justified its conduct and how it sought to form distinctive relationships with social actors.

The paper uses the notion of “styles of accountability” to empirically illustrate how an unprecedented public governance challenge can reveal broader accountability trends. The paper contributes to accountability research by elucidating how governments tackle ambiguity and uncertainty in their systems of public accountability in extraordinary times.

The purpose of this paper is to identify key challenges, opportunities, strengths and weaknesses experienced by the integrated reporting (IR) idea since the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC)’s Discussion Paper was published in late 2011. It provides insights into the phases of the IR journey as investigated by accounting researchers, identifies important gaps in the literature and sketches an agenda for future research.

The paper develops a theoretically informed analysis of published IR research articles using the idea journey theoretical framework. The paper draws upon academic analysis and insights published in 65 IR-related articles across 83 accounting journals listed in the Scopus database.

A key insight of the paper is that the academic literature has not yet covered all stages of the IR idea journey. The highest proportion of articles provide insights in the generation and production phases of this journey, while there is relatively little research into the impact phase of the IR idea. Furthermore, the locus of research covered by the current IR literature is situated at macro- and meso-levels. This reveals opportunities for future research to explore, at a more detailed level, interactions between single individuals or small groups in implementing or understanding the IR idea.

This paper focuses on the idea journey of the IIRC’s version of IR. It identifies gaps regarding the stages of the IR idea journey that have not been covered by the extant academic literature and suggests some research areas that need to be addressed to help inform improvements in policy and practice. A key limitation is that it draws on a single communication channel, namely, academic articles published in accounting journals, but it provides opportunities for considerable further developments.

The paper extends IR research by reconciling insights from an understandably fragmented emerging literature. It provides a multi-dimensional perspective on IR, highlighting the dynamics and interrelationships in the literature. It also helps inform improvements in research, policy and practice by identifying gaps regarding the stages of the IR idea journey that have not been covered by the extant academic literature. Lastly, the paper builds on the work of innovation and creativity scholars showing how the idea journey framework can be used to shape and add coherence to accounting research.

The purpose of this paper is to synthesise insights from accounting and accountability research into the rapidly emerging field of integrated reporting and proposes a comprehensive agenda for future research in this area. In so doing, it draws upon insights from other papers in this special issue of Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal on the theme of integrated reporting.

The paper draws upon and synthesises academic analysis and insights provided in the embryonic integrated reporting academic literature in conjunction with policy pronouncements.

The paper shows that the rapid development of integrated reporting policy, and early developments of practice, present theoretical and empirical challenges because of the different ways in which integrated reporting is understood and enacted within institutions. It highlights many areas where further robust academic research is needed to guide developments in policy and practice.

The paper provide academics, regulators and reporting organisations with insights into issues and aspects of integrated reporting that need further development and need robust evidence to help inform improvements in policy and practice. A key limitation is that it draws upon a synthesis of the existing literature which is at quite an early stage of development – but provides scope for considerable further development.

The paper provides the growing number of academic researchers in this emerging area with a foundation and agenda upon which they can build their research.

The purpose of this paper is to explore how the managers of early adopting Australian firms contribute to the institutionalisation of integrated reporting (IR).

This study is situated within institutional theory. The authors undertook semi-structured interviews with 23 Australian managers. The authors drew on Gabriel's (2000) poetic analytics to show how the sensemaking activities of the early adopters contribute to the institutionalisation process.

Two main narratives dominate our managers’ experience: IR as story-telling and IR as meeting expectations. These two narratives are constructed simultaneously and theyset up contrasting plots regarding salient events, responsibilities and characters that are resolved through one or more of three “inter-narratives” that background these tensions. The inter-narratives suggest time, the company's strategy, and talking and engagement can solve problems.

The authors argue that the managers of early adopting firms are important in the institutionalisation process. Even though they may not necessarily be institutional entrepreneurs they do engage in important “institutional work”. The study is limited by its predominant focus on only one participant to the institutionalisation process, and it is may be the case that the institutionalisation of IR is not ultimately successful.

Provides in-depth insights into an under-researched participant in an institutional field contributes to institutionalisation. Additionally, it sheds light on the conditions under which firms will engage with IR.

The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the current discussions about the concept of Integrated Reporting (IR) and provides a practical and useful proposal of an instrument that could help to apply the IR concept in corporate practice.

The study uses a deductive normative research approach.

Based on a comprehensive review of international literature and research, the paper argues that a structured presentation of the traditional measure of “value added” in a so-called “value added statement” (VAS) has the potential to serve as a practical and effective reporting instrument for IR. The proposed VAS not only meets the guiding principles of IR but also reports on the monetary effects of different types of capital included in IR and in this way complements and represents the concept of IR very well.

The authors intend to stimulate the academic as well as institutional discussion on how to apply the concept of IR at the corporate level. As the characteristics of the proposed VAS comply well with the guiding principles and concepts developed in the Integrated Reporting Framework project of the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) and with the ultimate objective of integrated thinking, the study can inform the current considerations within and outside of the IIRC.

The future of IR and the probability of its world-wide application in practice will depend on the development of appropriate reporting tools that incorporate the central ideas of IR, currently no such reporting tools exist. In this paper the authors make an argument for a VAS as a complementing, useful and therefore appropriate reporting tool for IR.

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.

The purpose of this paper is to critically assess integrated reporting so as to “broaden out” and “open up” dialogue and debate about how accounting and reporting standards might assist or obstruct efforts to foster sustainable business practices.

The authors link current debates about integrated reporting to prior research on the contested politics of social and environmental reporting, and critiques of the dominance of business case framings. The authors introduce research from science and technology studies that seeks to broaden out and open up appraisal methods and engagement processes in ways that highlight divergent framings and politically contentious issues, in an effort to develop empowering designs for sustainability. The authors demonstrate the strong resonance between this work and calls for the development of dialogic/polylogic accountings that take pluralism seriously by addressing constituencies and perspectives currently marginalized in mainstream accounting. The authors draw and build on both literatures to critically reflect on the International Integrated Reporting Council's (IIRC, 2011, 2012a, b, 2013a, b) advocacy of a business case approach to integrated reporting as an innovation that can contribute to sustainability transitions.

The authors argue that integrated reporting, as conceived by the IIRC, provides a very limited and one-sided approach to assessing and reporting on sustainability issues. While the business case framing on which it rests might assist in extending the range of phenomena accounted for in organizational reports, it remains an ideologically closed approach that is more likely to reinforce rather than encourage critical reflection on “business as usual” practices. Recognizing that the meaning and design of integrated reporting are still far from stabilized, the authors also illustrate more enabling possibilities aimed at identifying and engaging diverse socio-political perspectives.

Science and technology studies research on the need to broaden out and open up appraisal methods, together with proposals for dialogic/polylogic accountings, facilitates a critical, nuanced discussion of the value of integrated reporting as a change initiative that might foster transitions to more sustainable business practices.

The authors link ideas and findings from science and technology studies with literature on dialogic/polylogic accountings to engage current debates around the merits of integrated reporting as a change initiative that can contribute to sustainability. This paper advances understanding of the role of accounting in sustainability transitions in three main ways: first, it takes discussion of accounting change beyond the organizational level, where much professional and academic literature is currently focussed, and extends existing critiques of business case approaches to social and environmental reporting; second, it emphasizes the political and power-laden nature of appraisal processes, dimensions that are under-scrutinized in existing accounting literature; and third, it introduces a novel framework that enables evaluation of individual disclosure initiatives such as integrated reporting without losing sight of the big picture of sustainability challenges.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the internal mechanisms employed by early adopters of integrated reporting in Australia to manage their reporting process and explores whether integrated reporting is stimulating innovative disclosure mechanisms.

The study was based on in-depth semi-structured interviews with organisations in varying stages of implementing integrated reporting. In total, 23 interviews were conducted with sustainability managers, finance managers and communications managers across 15 organisations. A content analysis of the interviews was undertaken using qualitative coding techniques.

While the organisations that are producing some form of integrated report are changing their processes and structures, or at least talking about it, their adoption of integrated reporting has not necessarily stimulated new innovations in disclosure mechanisms. This study did not uncover radical, transformative change to reporting processes, but rather incremental changes to processes and structures that previously supported sustainability reporting.

A major limitation of this research study was the small sample of organisations and stakeholders that participated, and the single-country focus. Finance, accounting and strategy people were particularly under-represented in this study, as well as external stakeholders, and the conclusions can only be tentative until further tested.

This paper sheds light on the practices of early adopters of integrated reporting, and their learning could inform other organisations considering an integrated reporting approach.

As an emerging phenomenon, there are few empirical studies exploring integrated reporting practices and this paper provides some insights into integrated reporting in Australia.

Purpose: This chapter aims to identify and evaluate the various components of business model disclosures in an Integrated Report and ascertain how the notion of business model is perceived among practitioners.

Need for the Study: According to previous research, the International Integrated Reporting Council’s (IIRC) objective of improving corporate reporting by encouraging organisations to disclose their business model has not found the desired recognition. Therefore, the study elaborates on the various components of business model reporting and their implications on corporate reporting in general.

Methodology: A review of literature was conducted to identify and analyse research based on business models and their disclosures in integrated reporting. A narrative review was undertaken for selected literature.

Findings: The findings suggest that most large-sized organisations use integrated reporting for impression management and are not inclined to disclose too much about their business models for fear of competition. There is still a lack of clear understanding of what a business model should entail.

Practical Implication: This study adds to the research on business model disclosures in integrated reporting. Voluntary disclosure and a better understanding of such disclosures will prepare organisations of all sizes and industries for an event when Integrated Reporting becomes statutory.