Search results

This paper aims to look into the new corporate reporting phenomenon, the so-called integrated reporting (IR), so as to assess the information level provided, identify trends and explore its determining factors.

This study looks into the IR disclosure level of the annual reports published by 91 companies in the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC)’s pilot programme. The authors’ empirical research focuses on four areas: the guiding principles of connectivity and materiality, as well as two content elements: the business model and governance. Following extant research on voluntary disclosure, a disclosure index is proposed and some hypotheses are put forward on its connection with some corporate variables.

The results point out that the disclosure levels of the IRs published by IIRC’s pilot programme members reach medium levels of disclosure. According to the authors’ index, the level of disclosure is significantly associated with the specific environment of organizations (i.e. region and industry), assurance of the report and publication in the IIRC website.

This study makes a relevant contribution, as it presents an innovative IR disclosure index and sheds some light on the disclosure practices of early adopters of IR. This evidence is valuable in understanding the trends in this field and could help the IIRC and other standard setters with a view to improving sustainable development and reporting.

Drawing on Suchman’s conception of cognitive legitimacy and Boswell’s account of the political functions of expert knowledge, this paper aims to study the due process followed by the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) prior to the publication of the first version of the International Integrated Reporting Framework (IIRF). Specifically, the author analyses the lobbying strategies used in the comment letters sent by a subset of lobbyists, “the experts”, represented by accounting bodies and firms, regulators and academics.

From both a form- and meaning-oriented analysis, this paper focuses on how the experts resorted to the functions of knowledge when they took part in the IIRF’s public consultation. The author first carries out a quantitative content analysis of the responses to the 2013 Consultation Draft submitted by those constituents considered as accounting expert lobbyists. Then, the author analyse how these actors framed their comments under expert knowledge to legitimise the IIRC, the IIRF and the accounting profession itself.

The findings suggest that the expert groups welcomed the opportunity, not simply to legitimise the IIRC through their democratic support, but to provide a technocratic settlement that ensures the due process is based on the mobilisation of expert knowledge as a legitimate source. By drawing on the cognitive legitimacy of expert lobbyists, the IIRC drew on the political functions of expert knowledge to reduce uncertainty and gain stability.

Analysis of the lobbying strategies used by the accounting experts whose position could make a difference and receive more attention from the IIRC makes this contribution of particular interest, especially since the first version of the IIRF sought to guide disclosure and sustainable business practices around the world.

Experts as political actors play a legitimising role since they are capable of producing relevant knowledge that, due to its nature and scope, certainly affects policymaking and sustainable development.

This research provides a sociopolitical perspective to comprehend how some lobbying strategies, in this case, of expert actors, contribute to legitimising a standard-setter body and its endeavours in the context of voluntary standards.