Search results

The purpose of this paper is to contribute to scholarly work on the role of sell-side financial analysts in corporate governance (CG). It examines the more recent work products pertaining specifically to CG that analysts based in the USA and UK have generated in the past two decades, namely, their CGCG reports. Specifically, this paper focusses on analysing how analyst CG reports constitute a comparative space in which the governance procedures of companies are evaluated and “best practices” are created.

This study involves a social constructivist textual analysis of 48 CG reports produced by analysts based in the USA and UK between 1998 and 2009.

Analyst CG reports textually construct a comparative space comprising four dimensions. First, the space is constructed for some carefully edited users to evaluate the governance of companies. Second, the construction of this space requires the selection of “building materials”, i.e., governance issues included in the space that render companies amenable to evaluation and comparison. Third, by linking the range of governance issues chosen to formal regulations, firms are rendered governable and regulatory requirements reinterpreted. Lastly, by using different types of inscriptions, such as narratives and tables, the space highlights “winners”, i.e., those companies which do better than others, and constructs their governance procedures as “best practices”.

This research provides a first step towards an in-depth understanding of analyst CG reports. The insights from this paper generate a range of areas for future research, including how these reports are produced and used.

This paper adds to the existing literature focussing on the role of analysts in CG. It extends previous studies by examining the more recent and debatable work products generated by analysts, namely, their CG reports, and suggests an extended CG role for them. Theoretically, analyst CG reports are conceptualised as “inscriptions” that construct “documentary reality”. The notion of “editing” is also drawn upon, to analyse a particular way in which documentary reality is constructed. Accordingly, this paper broadens the theoretical perspectives used in CG research.

This paper aims to provide evidence to suggest that private social and environmental reporting (i.e. one-on-one meetings between institutional investors and investees on social and environmental issues) is beginning to merge with private financial reporting and that, as a result, integrated private reporting is emerging.

In this paper, 19 FTSE100 companies and 20 UK institutional investors were interviewed to discover trends in private integrated reporting and to gauge whether private reporting is genuinely becoming integrated. The emergence of integrated private reporting through the lens of institutional logics was interpreted. The emergence of integrated private reporting as a merging of two hitherto separate and possibly rival institutional logics was framed.

It was found that specialist socially responsible investment managers are starting to attend private financial reporting meetings, while mainstream fund managers are starting to attend private meetings on environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues. Further, senior company directors are becoming increasingly conversant with ESG issues.

The findings were interpreted as two possible scenarios: there is a genuine hybridisation occurring in the UK institutional investment such that integrated private reporting is emerging or the financial logic is absorbing and effectively neutralising the responsible investment logic.

These findings provide evidence of emergent integrated private reporting which are useful to both the corporate and institutional investment communities as they plan their engagement meetings.

No study has hitherto examined private social and environmental reporting through interview research from the perspective of emergent integrated private reporting. This is the first paper to discuss integrated reporting in the private reporting context.