In the field of sustainability reporting (SR), the so-called ‘integrated report’ (IR) is gaining momentum. In spite of its voluntary nature, a growing number of firms are adopting IR by participating in the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) Pilot Programme. Stimulated by concerns on the use of SR as a legitimation strategy, the paper investigates whether the decision to adopt an IR stems from the need to repair legitimacy threats. By showing that IR adopters have significantly higher Bloomberg ESG disclosure ratings relative to non-adopters, we reject the hypothesis of firms adopting IR as a response to a poor rating. Additionally, we show that other proxies of legitimacy pressures (size, leverage, profitability, industry) do not play a role in explaining IR adoption. Overall, our evidence suggests that corporate engagement in IR is not a matter of strategic legitimation. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environmen

No abstract

Purpose-The International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) claims that integrated reporting (IR) can enhance corporate accountability, yet critical and interpretative studies have contested this outcome. Insufficient empirical research details how preparers experience accountability while constructing IR; to fill this gap, this study analyses how the preparers' mode of cognition influences the patterns of accountability associated with IR. Design/methodology/approach-A functionalist approach to narratives helps elucidate the role that the IR preparers' narrative mode of cognition plays on accountability toward stakeholders. The empirical analysis particularly benefits from in-depth interviews with the IR preparers of a global insurer that has used IR since 2013. Findings-The preparers' narrative mode of cognition facilitates dialogue with IR users. It addresses accountability tensions by revealing the company's value creation process. Preparers' efforts to establish a meaningful dialogue with a growing variety of stakeholders through broader and plainer messages reveals the potential of IR as a narrative source of a socializing form of accountability. However, financial stakeholders remain the primary addressees of the reports. Research limitations/implications-This study focuses on preparers' views; further research should integrate users' accountability expectations. Originality/value-This article offers new insights for dealing with corporate reporting and accountability in a novel IR setting.

Purpose-This paper seeks to understand how the principle of materiality gets implemented in integrated reporting contexts.Design/methodology/approach-Drawing on an interpretation of materiality as a social construction, this research explores the meaning that practitioners attach to the principle during their implementation of it. Following an existing framework for exploring materiality in corporate reporting, this study investigates the meaning by focusing on who participates in determining integrated reporting materiality and to whom the integrated report (IR) is addressed. This analysis benefits from in-depth interviews with persons involved in the preparation of IR for a firm that pioneered this form of reporting.Findings-In IR preparers' view, the meaning of materiality corresponds with the company strategy: The IR describes strategic priorities and related actions and results. Capital providers are the primary intended addressees of the material information. Although several actors engage in IR preparation, the materiality determination process is governed by a specific "IR hub" in strict collaboration with and dependence on the CFO.Research limitations/implications-In an IR context, materiality is intimately connected to the function that preparers assign to the report.Originality/value-This novel research opens the "black box" of the process by which materiality gets defined and then practically implemented in an IR context.

The rising emphasis on the business model (BM) as a reportable element reflects the view that it constitutes one of the key starting points for investors’ analysis. In spite of this, recent academic and professional studies describe current reporting on BMs as uninformative: too optimistic, generic and incomplete. The International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) claims that these limitations may be overcome by means of an “Integrated Report”, an innovative report which is expected to offer a complete and balanced representation of how organizations create value by mean of their BMs. The paper investigates the informativeness of BM disclosure questioning whether companies adopt impression management (IM) strategies by manipulating the tone of the BM disclosures provided in their reports. We perform a manual content analysis of all the reports identified in the IIRC website and a multivariate statistical analysis to assess if a positive tone of BM disclosure is significantly associated with weak corporate governance, bad performance and low verifiability of the disclosure itself. Our findings support the idea that managers use BM disclosure as an IM strategy. This evidence has relevant implications for both accounting scholars and practitioners, since it questions the role of integrated reporting in improving corporate reporting on BMs