Search results

This paper aims to evaluate non-financial reporting (NFR) frameworks insofar as risk reporting is concerned. This is facilitated through analysis of the adequacy of climate- and pandemic-related risk reporting in three industries that are both significantly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic and are at risk from climate change. The pervasiveness of pandemic and climate-change risks have been highlighted in 2020, the hottest year on record and the year the COVID-19 pandemic struck. Stakeholders might reasonably expect reporting on these risks to have prepared them for the consequences.

The current debate on the “complexity” of sustainability and NFR frameworks/standards is critically analysed in light of the COVID-19 pandemic and calls to “build back better”. Context is provided through analysis of risk reporting by the ten largest airlines and the five largest companies in each of the hotel and cruise industries.

Risk reporting on two significant issues, pandemics and climate change, is woefully inadequate. While very little consideration has been given to pandemic risks, disclosures on climate-related risks focus predominantly on “risks” of increased regulation rather than physical risks, indicating a short-term focus. The disclosures are dispersed across different corporate reporting media and fail to appreciate the long-term consequences or offer solutions. Mindful that a conceptual framework for NFR must address this, the authors propose a new definition of materiality and recommend that sustainable development risks and opportunities be placed at the core of a future framework for connected/integrated reporting.

For sustainable development risks to be perceived as “real” by managers, further research is needed to determine the nature and extent of key sustainable development risks and the most effective mitigation strategies.

This paper highlights the importance of recognising the complexity of the issues facing organisations, society and the planet and addressing them by encouraging robust consideration of the interdependencies in evolving approaches to corporate reporting.

This study contributes to the current debate on the future of corporate reporting in light of two significant interconnected crises that threaten business and society – the pandemic and climate change. It provides evidence to support a long-term oriented and holistic approach to risk management and reporting.

This study aims to explore the linkages between sustainable development and sustainability reporting by approaching the UN’s 2030 Agenda in connection with the Integrated Reporting (IR) and Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) frameworks. It aims to outline a theoretical model able to support the achievement of sustainable development goals (SDGs) through appropriate reporting.

The research methodology follows a qualitative approach, combining content and benchmarking analyses of the official documents in question. It aims to provide a better understanding of the conceptual matches between the “5 Ps” of sustainable development and the two sustainability reporting frameworks (IR and GRI) by breaking them down into components and overlapping their constituents to highlight the connections.

The results reveal that both sustainability reporting frameworks provide prerequisites to ensure SDGs achievement due to the embedded sustainability issues. As there are more matches between SDGs and the capitals implied in the pursuit of value creation, IR better fits to become part of the sustainable development strategy as a valuable option for reporting on SDGs.

The study addresses academia through a better understanding of the connections between SDGs and sustainability reporting. It might help regulators to improve their latest efforts to enhance transparency and comparability through the enactment of Directive 2014/95, as long as it has not imposed a standardised report yet. It could guide practitioners to face future challenges and support their steps towards standardised reporting practices.

This paper approaches the newsworthy topic of sustainable development, outlining a conceptual model meant to support the SDGs achievement through appropriate standardised reporting. It might also fill the gap of the Directive 2014/95 on non-financial information disclosure as it identifies the most suitable type of reporting to enhance the harmonisation at the European level.

A sustainability reporting framework must demonstrate that resources are fairly bought and used to support diverse life on earth within habitable ranges. The purpose of this paper is to propose a principle-based sustainability reporting framework that measures, audits and reports based on sustainability outcomes and impacts as part of the corporate reporting framework.

This paper draws on the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs) and targets for preparing a reporting framework. It uses Gaia Theory and the Theory of Distributive Justice constructs that align with sustainable development principles to delineate a reporting approach.

Frameworks that promote sustainability reporting have increasingly embraced UN SDGs but overly focus on performance promoting inter-firm comparisons. This framework introduces principle-based sustainability reporting where firms demonstrate their chosen contribution to sustainable development using 17 UN SDGs as goal posts.

This conceptual paper presents theoretical constructs that future research can empirically validate to enhance sustainability reporting.

This principle-based sustainability reporting framework is implementable for corporate reporting, where sustainability reporting integrates with the financial and economic intellectual capital reporting frameworks.

This framework highlights the importance of acquiring and using resources to distribute justice and fairness. It is a joint project between firms and stakeholders.

This framework promotes integrated thinking for firms to engage in principle-based sustainability reporting and provides a roadmap for sustainability reporting using the SDG Compass logic model.

With a view to enabling organisations provide a clear understanding of firm value creation, several national and supranational institutions have produced guidelines and frameworks for externally reporting intellectual capital (IC). In many cases regulators, the accounting profession and accounting scholars have driven these initiatives. The purpose of this paper is to summarise, analyse and compare the guidelines and frameworks that have been developed with a focus on externally reporting IC.

The paper analyses the assumptions underpinning 20 guidelines and frameworks that have been developed with a focus on reporting IC using a self-constructed framework.

The review resulted in a comparison of IC reporting guidelines and framework based on target audience, role of IC within the organisational strategic management process and reporting IC indicator. It provides an understanding of the state of the art in relation to external reporting of IC.

The insights provided by the comparison of the guidelines and frameworks are likely to be helpful for practitioners wanting to adopt or develop an IC reporting model for their organisation. Policy-makers will find these insights beneficial when attempting to refine existing frameworks and guidelines for reporting IC and in developing new ones to suit various circumstances. Also, this paper provides a useful review for academics.

This is the first paper to provide a review of a large number of business reporting guidelines and frameworks with a focus on IC. It is a valuable reference for practitioners, policy-makers and academics on IC reporting models.

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.

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 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.

The initial rationale for developing integrated reporting included addressing the failures of traditional reporting to address sustainability issues. Subsequently, the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) modified its stated objectives to emphasise integrated thinking and value creation. There has been debate on whether the IIRC’s process for developing its integrated reporting framework was subject to regulatory capture by the accounting profession (Flower, 2015; Adams, 2015; Thomson, 2015). This paper aims to provide additional evidence on the extent to which this regulatory capture occurred, with an update on current developments.

Data from interviews with key participants in the integrated reporting framework’s development and the IIRC’s Council and Working Group meeting minutes were analysed to identify to what extent the change in the IIRC’s focus can be explained by regulatory capture theory.

The findings show that the integrated reporting framework’s development was subject to regulatory capture by accountants. However, the extent of capture was mitigated to some extent by processes adopted in its development. This is consistent with regulatory capture theory.

This paper critically examines the debate on the extent to which the sustainability message has been lost as a result of regulatory capture. It provides an in-depth analysis of the IIRC’s treatment of sustainability which explores the application of regulatory capture theory and examines evidence not considered in previous studies.

First, this paper aims to explore the extent of the global reporting initiative (GRI) sustainability key performance indicator (KPI) usage in sustainability reporting by businesses operating in Sri Lanka. Second, using a contingency theory approach, this research examines the factors which promote or inhibit the use of the GRI framework to adopt sustainability KPIs in a developing country context, Sri Lanka.

Content analysis and semi-structured interviews are used in this study to explore the key factors which affect the usage of the GRI framework by Sri Lankan companies in adopting sustainability KPIs and reporting on sustainability.

The findings indicate that the GRI framework is increasingly used for sustainability reporting by Sri Lankan companies because of its flexibility, consistency, legitimacy and its focus on continuous improvement. However, company managers also shed light on the extensive number of KPIs in the GRI framework making selections challenging and the consequent difficulties associated with adapting these KPIs for companies operating in a developing country context.

This study contributes to extending the broader literature on sustainability reporting in developing countries and specifically on sustainability KPIs. Second, this paper adds to the current empirical research on sustainability reporting in Sri Lanka where the literature is still sparse. Third, this study highlights the key factors that support or hinder the usage of the GRI framework in a developing country context.

Important insights for GRI, other standard-setting agencies and businesses can be drawn from the findings of this study. By capitalising further on the training and the educational courses provided by GRI, GRI can be involved in mitigating some of the pressing issues faced by the reporting companies.

This study adds to the limited research on sustainability reporting and sustainability KPIs in developing country contexts. It shows how companies in Sri Lanka are engaging with sustainability KPIs and sustainability reporting, but are also constrained by the GRI framework as its standards are not tailored to issues in developing countries.

This study aims to explore the impact of the chief executive officer’s (CEO) age on adopting global reporting initiative (GRI) framework for corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting. It also underlines how board social capital moderates the relationship between CEO age and the adoption of the GRI framework.

Chinese A-listed companies during 2010–2018 were used. The authors applied a logistic regression model due to the binary nature of the dependent variable. For robustness, two-step generalized method of moments (GMM) and lagged independent variables are used.

The study finds that CEO age negatively impacts the firm’s choice of GRI reporting framework. The social capital of the board positively moderates this relationship. This finding is based on the notion that as a CEO grows older or headed toward retirement age, his/her interest in CSR diminishes due to a shorter career horizon. Boards with external links provide better advice on CSR issues and mitigate the negative impact of CEO age.

The study results are important for understanding the GRI framework’s development and implementation, particularly in China.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study that deeply examines how CEO age affects GRI adoption in the Chinese context and how the board’s social capital moderates this relationship.