Search results

This paper aims to understand the potential usefulness of sell-side analysts’ investment recommendation reports as a medium for communicating intellectual capital (IC) information. It explores the manner in which analyst reports supply IC information and the types of companies in relation to which analyst reports supply most IC information.

A content analysis of 64 initiating coverage analyst reports written on Australian companies is performed. The content analysis focuses on three semantic properties of IC disclosures: format (i.e. discursive, numerical-non-monetary, numerical-monetary and visual), news-tenor (i.e. positive, neutral and negative) and time-orientation (i.e. forward-looking, non-time-specific and past-oriented). The paper investigates whether analyst reports contain more IC information on companies providing less IC information through their own channels. For this, the authors test the hypothesised relationship between the extent of IC information and the IC intensity of the analysed company’s sector and the systematic risk of the company.

IC information in analyst reports is more discursive than numerical, not significantly more forward-looking in general and balanced between negative or neutral and positive attributions (except for information on company management). However, compared to the semantic properties of corporate reporting media, analyst reports in this study communicate IC information in a manner arguably more useful to investors. A company’s systematic risk and sector in which the company operates are associated with the extent of IC information in analyst reports. The findings indicate that analysts’ contribution as an IC information provider is greatest for companies providing less IC information directly to the public.

The results have implications for policymakers contemplating reforming non-financial reporting regulation and ensuring a level playing field for investors and companies when determining corporate IC disclosure strategy and strategies for investor relations.

This is the first study to explore semantic properties and drivers of IC information in analysts’ initiating coverage reports. This paper highlights the importance of analyst reports as a medium for communicating IC information that could complement corporate communication media.

Integrated reporting enhances the meaningfulness of non-financial information, but whether this enhancement is progressive or regressive from a sustainability perspective is unknown. This study aims to examine the influence of the Integrated Reporting (<IR>) Framework on the disclosure of financial- and impact-material sustainability-related information in integrated reports.

Using a disclosure index constructed from the Global Reporting Initiative’s G4 Guidelines and UN Sustainable Development Goals, the authors content analysed integrated reports of 40 companies from the International Integrated Reporting Council’s Pilot Programme Business Network published between 2015 and 2017. The content analysis distinguished between financial- and impact-material sustainability-related information.

The extent of sustainability-related disclosures in integrated reports remained more or less constant over the study period. Impact-material disclosures were more prominent than financial material ones. Impact-material disclosures mainly related to environmental aspects, while labour practices-related disclosures were predominantly financially material. The balance between financially- and impact-material sustainability-related disclosures varied based on factors such as industry environmental sensitivity and country-specific characteristics, such as the country’s legal system and development status.

The paper presents a unique disclosure index to distinguish between financially- and impact-material sustainability-related disclosures. Researchers can use this disclosure index to critically examine the nature of sustainability-related disclosure in corporate reports.

This study offers an in-depth understanding of the influence of non-financial reporting frameworks, such as the <IR> Framework that uses a financial materiality perspective, on sustainability reporting. The findings reveal that the practical implementation of the <IR> Framework resulted in sustainability reporting outcomes that deviated from theoretical expectations. Exploring the materiality concept that underscores sustainability-related disclosures by companies using the <IR> Framework is useful for predicting the effects of adopting the Sustainability Disclosure Standards issued by the International Sustainability Standards Board, which also emphasises financial materiality.

Despite an emphasis on financial materiality in the <IR> Framework, companies continue to offer substantial impact-material information, implying the potential for companies to balance both financial and broader societal concerns in their reporting.

While prior research has delved into the practices of regulated integrated reporting, especially in the unique context of South Africa, this study focuses on voluntary adoption, attributing observed practices to intrinsic company motivations. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, it is the first study to explicitly explore the nature of materiality in sustainability-related disclosure. The research also introduces a nuanced understanding of contextual factors influencing sustainability reporting.

This paper aims to critically examine the conceptualisation of the principle of materiality, which is one of the most divisive concepts in current regulatory work on standard setting for sustainability reporting. This paper pays particular attention to the current agenda for standard setting for sustainability reporting and the related discourse, including the International Sustainability Standard Board (ISSB) Exposure Draft IFRS S1 General Requirements for Disclosure of Sustainability-related Financial Information. A new conceptualisation of materiality is proposed based on the critique.

The academic and grey literature relating to current regulatory work on sustainability reporting, responses to the ISSB General Requirement Exposure Draft and sustainability reporting frameworks and standards are reviewed. This review also includes the papers in this journal’s special issue on standard setting for sustainability reporting. This review is used to develop original views on how materiality could be conceptualised and interpreted for sustainability reporting. This paper’s viewpoint is built on the criticisms of various definitions of materiality found in the literature and the author’s original critique of the materiality definitions provided in various reports and standards/frameworks on sustainability reporting.

Both financial materiality and double materiality approaches have drawbacks. A single materiality approach underpinned by accountability for financial and non-financial capitals instead of decision usefulness for any stakeholder is proposed. The proposed conceptualisation is also underpinned by the need to recognise dependencies between the environment, society and organisations when creating long-term enterprise value. The proposed approach is expected to trigger real changes in organisational practices to pursue a purpose beyond profit.

The proposed approach to defining materiality for sustainability reporting bridges the divide between financial materiality and social and environmental materiality concepts underpinning different standards and regulations.

The approach to materiality proposed in this paper is aimed at enabling organisations to pursue United Nations Sustainable Development Goals to make the planet and societies more sustainable.

This paper proposes a new conceptualisation of and approach to materiality determination for sustainability reporting.

The purpose of this paper is to test the performativity of intellectual capital (IC) from the perspective of sell-side analysts, a type of actor who consumes and creates IC information and in whose practice IC information plays a significant role.

The empirical component of the study comprises a narrative analysis of the text of a large corpus of sell-side analysts’ initiation coverage reports. The authors adopt Mouritsen’s (2006) performative and ostensive conceptualisations of IC as the theoretical framework.

The authors find that the identities and properties of IC elements are variable, dynamic and transformative. The relevance of IC elements in the eyes of analysts is conditional on the context, temporally contingent and bestowed indirectly. IC elements are attributed to firm value both directly, in a linear manner, and indirectly, via various non-linear interrelationships established with other IC elements, tangible capital and financial capital.

This study challenges the conventional IC research paradigm and contributes towards a performativity-inspired conceptualisation of IC and a resultant situated model of IC in place of a predictive model.

This is the first study to apply a performative lens to study IC identities, roles and relationships from the perspective of a field of practice that is external to the organisation where IC is hosted. Examining IC from analysts’ perspective is important because not only can it provide an alternative perspective of IC, it also enables an understanding of analysts’ field of practice.

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.

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 purpose of this study is to investigate whether the corporate environmental, social and governance (ESG) performance of companies is influenced by the barriers and opportunities created by three factors characterising a country’s governance landscape: democracy, political stability and regulatory quality. Additionally, this study separately explains the influence of the three country governance factors on the ESG performance of companies and how they are affected by the profitability of the company.

Fixed effects multiple linear regression is performed on 6,035 firm-year observations drawn from 27 countries relating to 1,207 unique constituents of the S&P Global 1200 index for a five-year period from 2015 to 2019. Clustered standard errors robust to heteroscedasticity and serial correlation are estimated for a specification that includes Refinitiv ESG scores as the dependent variable, selected Worldwide Governance Indicators as the independent variables and several country- and firm-level controls.

The study finds that companies’ ESG performance is higher in countries with a lower level of democracy and political stability, and corporate governance performance is higher in countries with higher regulatory quality. A component-level analysis finds significant variation in the results across the different ESG pillars. Firm profitability moderates the relationship between country-level governance factors and companies’ ESG performance.

The study reveals that national governments can prompt companies to enhance their governance performance, invariably leading to greater engagement in sustainability by improving their regulatory environment and enforcement mechanisms. Thus, the implementation of regulations targeting corporate environmental and social performance is not always needed to prompt better corporate ESG performance.

This study shows that internationalised companies proactively work towards achieving sustainability in countries where the country governance landscape is ineffective and inadequate to enable it.

This study addresses the association between country-level governance and firm-level ESG performance, in contrast to firm-level corporate social responsibility disclosure that has been the focus of prior research. As disclosures can be symbolic and may not reflect actual ESG performance, the results of prior studies examining the relationship between country-level governance performance and corporate social responsibility disclosure is inappropriate to explain the factors affecting the ESG performance of companies.

Drawing on Adams (2017a) conceptualisation of value creation by organisations published in the Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, the purpose of this paper is to develop a conceptualisation of how national governments can create value for society and the economy through their approach to the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

An initial conceptual framework was developed from literature situated at the intersection of accountability, public policy and sustainability/sustainable development. The authors' review of extant research on national policy development on value creation, sustainability and the SDGs identified gaps in (understanding of) approaches to national accountability and national governance (by state and civil society) processes. The subsequent thematic analysis of 164 written submissions made to the Australian Senate inquiry on the SDGs between December 2017 and March 2018, together with transcripts of five public hearings where 49 individuals and organisations appeared as witnesses during the second half of 2018, focussed on addressing these gaps.

Input to the Australian Senate Inquiry on the SDGs overwhelmingly emphasised the importance of transparency and stakeholder participation in accountability systems, commenting on data gathering, measuring and communicating. There was an emphasis on the need to involve all parts of society, including business, investors and civil society, and for strong central co-ordination by the Office of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. These data allowed the authors to refine the conceptualisation of how national governments can enhance social and economic value through a focus on the UN SDGs and their approach to accounting, accountability and governance.

The findings have implications: for national governments in developing approaches to achieve sustainable development; and, for supranational bodies such as the UN in developing agreements, frameworks and guidance for national governments.

Building on the extant literature about how global governance should be engaged to improve accountability in achieving the SDGs, the conceptual framework developed through the study shifts focus to national governance and accountability, and provides a blueprint for national governments to create value for the economy and society in the face of global sustainable development issues.

We investigate the association between intellectual capital disclosure (ICD) and board characteristics in the unique setting of Mauritius, a Small Island Developing State. The uniqueness of the setting stems from the country's corporate governance landscape, where most companies have female directors and a high proportion of directors with multiple directorships, director independence is symbolic and directors come from a close-knit group.

We use 120 firm-year observations from companies listed on the Stock Exchange of Mauritius from 2014 to 2017. All data is hand collected from annual reports using content analysis method. Panel multivariate regression is used to test the hypotheses with relevant controls, including intellectual capital performance.

ICD is negatively associated with board independence and positively associated with gender diversity of the board. No association is found between ICD and the size of the board, multiple directorships or the average tenure of the board members.

This is the first study investigating the association of board gender diversity, multiple directorship and tenure of board members with ICD in annual reports. The relationships observed between board characteristics and ICD highlight the context-dependent nature of these relationships. This study also overcomes the correlated omitted variable bias likely to have affected the analyses in previous studies examining the nexus between board characteristics and ICD through its control for intellectual capital performance.