An Open Question in the Integrated Reporting: Materiality or Conciseness?

Bavagnoli, Francesco; Comoli, Maurizio; Gelmini, Lorenzo; Riva, Patrizia

doi:10.2139/ssrn.2508657

Cited by 10 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As these two principles are strictly linked to disclosing the dynamics of a firm's value creation process, the way in which UFS sets them up cannot be commented on, because the UFS IR does not make the firm's business value creation explicit in its business model, as requested by the IIRC framework. Moreover, the need to investigate the mutual relationships between materiality and conciseness is an open issue on which IIRC launched a call for papers in 2014; it is considered a new and cutting edge issue in accounting studies (Bavagnoli et al, 2014).…”

Section: Organisational Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Free State University integrated reporting: a critical consideration

Veltri

Silvestri

2015

Journal of Intellectual Capital

123

121

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore the integrated report (IR) of a South African public university (UFS), by comparing it with the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) framework, to verify whether UFS IR matches the IIRC framework main aims, which is integrating IC and non-IC information into a single report for stakeholders. Design/methodology/approach – The paper employs the case study approach, which is appropriate when a researcher needs to conduct a holistic and in-depth analysis of a complex phenomenon in its real-life context. As such, this method is particularly suitable for exploring intellectual and social capitals, which is complex and context-dependent by nature. Findings – UFS IR includes the content elements of the IIRC framework as labels, but it does not deepen their meaning. As regards the IIRC guidelines principles, the analysis of the UFS IR shows that it does not seem to follow them. Briefly, the data do not have an outlook orientation, the information is not interconnected, the stakeholder relationships are not highlighted and the organisational ability to create value is not disclosed. Research limitations/implications – The implications based on the “bad” experience of UFS IR aims to extend the findings of the case study by shedding light on the levers and the barriers that managers have to face when implementing an IRing project in their organisations. Originality/value – To the best of the knowledge the research is the first investigating the IR theme in the public sector, specifically the higher education sector, dealing with disclosing IC (and non-IC) information within a new reporting mode: the IR.

show abstract

Section: Organisational Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Free State University integrated reporting: a critical consideration

Veltri

Silvestri

2015

Journal of Intellectual Capital

123

121

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Non-qualifying statements include generic reflections on observed trends, such as in Bavagnoli et al (2014): 'This concept (of an "Integrated Report") has been gaining momentum during the last few years. ', and in Villiers et al (2014): 'Integrated reporting has rapidly gained considerable prominence since the formation in 2010 of the International Integrated Reporting Committee (...)'.…”

Section: Qualifying Claims: Driving Factors and Activated Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrated reporting: Much ado about nothing?

Graaff¹,

Steens²,

Camfferman³

2021

Financial Reporting

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Integrated reporting, which helps companies to share their value creation pro-cesses with their stakeholders, has developed rapidly in recent years. Due to the increased attention paid to the International Integrated Reporting Framework is-sued by the International Integrated Reporting Council, the number of companies worldwide engaging in integrated reporting is continually rising, which is presuma-bly driven by the claimed benefits of this practice. Through recourse to legitimacy theory and management fashion theory, here we provide a preliminary assessment of the development of integrated reporting, alongside considering the potential in-fluence of academic research in its growth. We review the existing body of aca-demic literature on this topic, ultimately identifying 123 claims about the benefits of IR from 29 papers published in 15 journals between May 2011 and September 2016, before proceeding to analyse both the sources and the level of substantia-tion of these claims. Our findings suggest that only a few of the purported ad-vantages of integrated reporting are supported by actual empirical evidence, while most of the claims only cite a limited number of primary sources. Based on these results and our assessment of the development of the concept of IR, we propose a future research agenda.

show abstract

“…Whilst appearing to promote a wider boundary there are two qualifiers here that act to the contrary as there is no definition of 'risks, opportunities and outcomes' or 'value'. Bavagnoli et al, (2014) argued that such ambiguity would lead to the risks, opportunities and outcomes being determined from a managerial, rather than societal perspective, to delimit accountability. Likewise Flower (2015) debated that the value created would be interpreted as 'value for investors' rather than 'value for society' to avoid the disclosure of long-term externalities.…”

Section: Rationalismmentioning

confidence: 99%

The boundary of sustainability reporting: evidence from the FTSE100

Miles

Ringham

2019

AAAJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to use a multi-disciplinary theoretical understanding of boundary setting to develop a quadripartite model in which sustainability reporting boundaries are classified as “Reputation Management”, “Ownership and Control”, “Accountability”; and, “Stakeholder Engagement”. Content analysis is then used to empirically test the model. Design/methodology/approach Using impression management theory, rationalism, systems and contingency theory, and network theory, a model is created which classifies sustainability reporting boundaries. Content analysis is used to empirically test boundaries across the disclosure of 49 GRI topics by the FTSE100. Findings Sustainability reporting fails to discharge accountability due to adoption of narrow “Reputation Management” boundaries. Boundaries are significantly (p<0.0001) narrower than previous research suggests. Findings support impression management theory as the strongest theory to predict reporting content. An ownership and control boundary, although widely criticized, represents the boundary of progressive reporters, lending marginal support for economic theories. Accountability boundaries are scarce. No evidence was found for stakeholder engagement boundaries. Practical implications The determination of boundary is critical to the discharge of accountability. A critical consideration of boundary setting is required, including authentic stakeholder engagement in determining boundaries and transparency of boundary adopted. The results are ranked to enable benchmarking of the FTSE100. Boundaries can be widened through regulation or “name and shame campaigns”. Originality/value This paper provides a theory-informed advancement in thinking on sustainability reporting boundary setting and the importance of this for advancing sustainability reporting quality.

show abstract

An Open Question in the Integrated Reporting: Materiality or Conciseness?

Cited by 10 publications

References 6 publications

The Free State University integrated reporting: a critical consideration

The Free State University integrated reporting: a critical consideration

Integrated reporting: Much ado about nothing?

The boundary of sustainability reporting: evidence from the FTSE100

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About