Using the International Integrated Reporting Framework to comply with EU Directive 2014/95/EU: can we afford another reporting façade?

2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (5) ◽  
pp. 889-914 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucia Biondi ◽  
John Dumay ◽  
David Monciardini

Purpose Motivated by claims that the International Integrated Reporting Framework (IRF) can be used to comply with Directive 2014/95/EU (the EU Directive) on non-financial and diversity disclosure, the purpose of this study is to examine whether companies can comply with corporate reporting laws using de facto standards or frameworks. Design/methodology/approach The authors adopted an interpretivist approach to research along with current regulatory studies that aim to investigate business compliance with the law using private sector standards. To support the authors’ arguments, publicly available secondary data sources were used, including newsletters, press releases and websites, reports from key players within the accounting profession, public documents issued by the European Commission and data from corporatergister.com. Findings To become a de facto standard or framework, a private standard-setter requires the support of corporate regulators to mandate it in a specific national jurisdiction. The de facto standard-setter requires a powerful coalition of actors who can influence the policymakers to allow its adoption and diffusion at a national level to become mandated. Without regulatory support, it is difficult for a private and voluntary reporting standard or framework to be adopted and diffused. Moreover, the authors report that the <IRF> preferences stock market capitalism over sustainability because it privileges organisational sustainability over social and environmental sustainability, emphasises value creation over holding organisations accountable for their impact on society and the environment and privileges the entitlements of providers of financial capital over other stakeholders. Research limitations/implications The authors question the suitability of the goals of both the <IRF> and the EU Directive during and after the COVID-19 crisis. The planned changes to both need rethinking as we head into uncharted waters. Moreover, the authors believe that the people cannot afford any more reporting façades. Originality/value The authors offer a critical analysis of the link between the <IRF> and the EU Directive and how the <IRF> can be used to comply with the EU Directive. By questioning the relevance of the compliance question, the authors advance a critique about the relevance of these and other legal and de facto frameworks, particularly considering the more pressing needs that must be met to address the economic, social and environmental implications of the COVID-19 crisis.

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Thilini Cooray ◽  
Samanthi Senaratne ◽  
Nuwan Gunarathne ◽  
Roshan Herath ◽  
Dileepa Neelangi Samudrage

Purpose This paper aims to examine the coverage of and trends in reporting content elements in the integrated reports of the Sri Lankan companies following the International Integrated Reporting Framework (IIRF). Design/methodology/approach Based on a comprehensive checklist developed on the content elements of the IIRF, 171 corporate integrated reports were content-analyzed over a period of three years. The results were theorized subsequently using the legitimacy theory. Findings The study identifies that the extent of and trend in the coverage of content elements of the IIRF have increased during the period under consideration despite some under-addressed areas. It indicates that Sri Lankan companies are making progress in the preparation of integrated reports in line with the IIRF, which provides evidence in support of both strategic and institutional perspectives of the legitimacy theory because of the proactive actions taken by managers to acquire legitimacy along with the other normative and mimetic pressures available in the IR landscape. Originality/value This is one of the first studies that evaluate the compliance of IR adopters with the IIRF overtime in the entirety of a single country. It also develops a comprehensive index to capture the disclosure requirements of IR and extends the analysis to a voluntary context using both strategic and institutional perspectives of the legitimacy theory.


2017 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 553-573 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Guthrie ◽  
Francesca Manes-Rossi ◽  
Rebecca Levy Orelli

Purpose This paper aims to explore the linkages between integrated reporting (IR) and organisations’ internal processes, specifically focusing on investigating the internal mechanisms of change that can lead organisations to adopt IR disclosure and how this impacts on integrated thinking internally. Design/methodology/approach The paper draws upon previous analysis and insights provided in the IR academic literature, as well as analysing several directives, policy and framework pronouncements. The study also draws on the management accounting change literature, using it as a lens to observe early adopters’ practice. In addition, it provides detailed case studies considering the internal processes of change in five early adopters of the integrated reporting framework (<IRF>) and whether the adoption leads to internal “integrated thinking”. Five Italian public sector organisations are analysed, and the authors make use of official documents, press releases and in-depth semi-structured interviews with the major internal actors. Findings The research highlights that the processes of change in organisations adopting IR is their adoption of a way of thinking, that is, integrated thinking, as a result of the process of internalisation. Research limitations/implications Given the short history of IR, this sample is small due to the small number of early adopters. Originality/value The paper provides academics and policymakers with insights into the process of change to be considered while adopting the <IRF> and responds to calls in the IR literature for further field-based studies on IR’s impact on internal processes. Also, the paper highlights that the European Directive on the disclosure of non-financial and diversity information (2014/95/EU) has the potential to increase environmental, social and governance disclosures amongst European companies.


2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-39 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Dumay ◽  
Matteo La Torre ◽  
Federica Farneti

Purpose This paper examines the gap between reporting and managers’ behaviour to challenge the current theoretical underpinnings of intellectual capital (IC) disclosure practice and research. The authors explore how the key features from IC and integrated reporting can be combined to develop an extended model for companies to comply with EU Directive 2014/95/EU and increase trust in corporate disclosures and reports. Design/methodology/approach This essay relies on academic literature and examples from practice to critique the theories that explain corporate disclosure and reporting but do not change management behaviour. Based on this critique, the authors argue for a change in the fundamental theories of stewardship to frame a new concept for corporate disclosure incorporating using a multi-capitals framework. Findings We argue that, while the inconsistency between organisations’ reporting and behaviour persists, increasing, renewing or extending the information disclosed is not enough to instil trust in corporations. Stewardship over a company’s resources is necessary for increasing trust. The unanticipated consequences of dishonest behaviour by managers and shareholders compels a new application of stewardship theory that works as an overarching guide for managerial behaviour and disclosure. Emanating from this new model is a realisation that managers must abandon agency theory in practice, and specifically the bonus contract. Research limitations/implications We call for future empirical research to explore the role of stewardship theory within the dynamics of corporate disclosure using the approach. The research implications of those studies should incorporate the potential impacts on management behaviours within a stewardship framework and how those actions, and their outcomes, are disclosed for rebuilding public trust in business. Practical implications The implications for integrated reporting and reports complying with the new EU Directive are profound. Both instruments rely on agency theory to coax managers into reducing information asymmetry by disclosing more. However, agency theory only re-affirms the power managers have over corporate information. It does not change their behaviour, nor to act in the interest of all stakeholders as the stewards of an organisation’s resources. Social implications We advocate that, in business education, greater emphasis is needed on how stewardship has a more positive impact on management behaviour than agency, legitimacy and stakeholder theories. Originality/value We reflect on the current and compelling issues permeating the international landscape of corporate reporting and disclosure and explain why current theories which explain corporate disclosures do not change behaviour or engender trust in business and offer an alternative disclosure model based on stewardship theory.


2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 230-247 ◽  
Author(s):  
Natasja Steenkamp

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to develop guidelines of what award winning companies, leading practice in integrated reporting (IR) disclose in their integrated reports about material issues and their materiality determination processes. Also, to provide insight into what they disclose about their perception of materiality. Design/methodology/approach A content analysis was conducted to investigate what the top 10 South African companies of the 2015 Ernst and Young Excellence in Integrated Reporting Awards disclosed in their 2014 and 2015 integrated reports about their materiality determination processes, material issues and what materiality means to them. Thematic analyses were conducted in developing guidelines. Findings All except one company applied the International Integrated Reporting Framework. The materiality determination processes, material issues and companies’ descriptions of materiality are diverse. Material issues most companies identified relate to employees, social and environmental issues, customers and sustainable performance. Practical implications The proposed guidelines will provide useful strategies for organisations embarking on the IR journey about what issues could be considered as material and therefore included in integrated reports. It also proposes activities companies can undertake to identify, evaluate and prioritise material issues and execute their materiality determination process. Originality/value This paper is the first to develop guidelines of material matters and materiality determination processes. It also adds to existing literature on IR practice and the application of materiality.


2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Francesca Rossignoli ◽  
Riccardo Stacchezzini ◽  
Alessandro Lai

PurposeEuropean countries are likely to increasingly adopt integrated reporting (IR) voluntarily, after the 2014/95/EU Directive is revised and other initiatives are implemented. Therefore, the present study provides insights on the relevance of IR in voluntary contexts by exploring analysts' reactions to the release of integrated reports in diverse institutional settings.Design/methodology/approachDrawing on voluntary disclosure theory, a quantitative empirical research method is used to explore the moderating role of country-level institutional characteristics on the associations between voluntary IR release and analyst forecast accuracy and dispersion.FindingsIR informativeness is not uniform in the voluntary context and institutional settings play a moderating role. IR release is associated with increased consensus among analyst forecasts. However, in countries with weak institutional enforcement, a reverse association is detected, indicating that analysts rely largely on IR where the institutional setting strongly protects investors. Although a strong institutional setting boosts the IR release usefulness in terms of accuracy, it creates noise in analyst consensus.Research limitations/implicationsAcademics can appreciate the usefulness of voluntary IR across the institutional enforcement contexts.Practical implicationsManagers can use these findings to understand opportunities offered by IR voluntary release. The study recommends that policymakers, standard setters and regulators strengthen the institutional enforcement of sustainability disclosure.Originality/valueThis study is a unique contribution to recent calls for research on the effects of nonfinancial disclosure regulation and on IR “impacts”. It shows on the international scale that IR usefulness for analysts is moderated by institutional patterns, not country-level institutional characteristics.


2017 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 461-480 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Dumay ◽  
Cristiana Bernardi ◽  
James Guthrie ◽  
Matteo La Torre

Purpose This paper is motivated by the call for feedback by the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) from all stakeholders with knowledge of the International Integrated Reporting Framework (<IRF>) and specifically of the enablers, incentives and barriers to its implementation. The paper synthesises insights from contemporary accounting research into integrated reporting (IR) as a general concept and <IR> as espoused by the IIRC in the <IRF> (IIRC, 2013). The authors specifically focus on possible barriers and emphasise the specific issues the authors feel could be rectified to advance the <IRF>, along with the areas that may potentially hinder its wider adoption and implementation. Design/methodology/approach The paper draws upon and synthesises academic analysis and insights provided in the IR and <IR> academic literature as well as various directives, policy and framework pronouncements. Findings The flexibility and lack of prescription concerning actual disclosures and metrics in the <IRF> could allow it to be used for compliance, regardless of the other benefits lauded by the IIRC. Thus the authors see forces, both external and internal, driving <IR> adoption, with one prominent example being the European Union Directive on non-financial reporting. Because of the different ways in which IR is understood and enacted, there are numerous theoretical and empirical challenges for academics. The authors paper highlights potential areas for further robust academic research and the need to contribute to <IR> policy and practice. Research limitations/implications The paper provides the IIRC, academics, regulators and reporting organisations with insights into current practice and the <IRF>. The authors highlight the need for further development and evidence to help inform improvements both from a policy and a practice perspective. A key limitation of the authors’ work is that the authors draw upon a synthesis of the existing literature which is still in an early stage of development. Originality/value The paper provides the IIRC with several insights into the current <IRF> and specifically with the enablers, incentives and barriers to its implementation. Also, it provides academic researchers with a number of important observations and an agenda upon which the authors can build their future research.


2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 253-272 ◽  
Author(s):  
Said Shah ◽  
Jamil Anwar ◽  
SAF Hasnu

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the impact of internationalization of investment on corporate policies through multinational firms (MNFs) and thereby variation in financial performances when compared to domestic firms (DFs) using 10 years’ (2004-2013) secondary data of 153 firms listed on Pakistan Stock Exchange. Design/methodology/approach This study applies regression and ratio analyses for testing of hypotheses and other statistics. Findings The results indicate that the performance of MNFs is better than that of DFs primarily because of internationalization of investments and inventory utilization. The rest of the factors included in the model, namely, cash conversion cycle and corporate governance (CG) indices, have less prominent role in determining firms’ performance. Research limitations/implications Sample size was restricted to 153 firms, as complete data for the period selected to carry out the study were available only for these firms. For determining the quality of CG, only sample average has been used as bench mark due to non-availability of industrial average. Practical implications The recommendations of the research can be used by economic planners and corporate experts as policy guidelines and bench mark for improving the corporate and economic performance of the country. Besides, these recommendations are beneficial for emerging economies particularly and developed economies generally across the globe. Social implications Economic and financial regulators can get guidance from the findings of the study to adjust national-level corporate planning. For example, State Bank of Pakistan (the central bank of the country) can amend its prudential regulations with regard to maintaining liquidity by corporate units according to the results of the study. Corporate units can directly get guidance and adopt the findings of the study in their corporate planning to improve their performance. The findings and methodology of the research can also be used by research students on further exploring the field. Originality/value Splitting the sample into domestic and multinationals firms, separately and jointly analyzing these firms and then comparing corporate strategies of these firms based on location are unique.


2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (5) ◽  
pp. 701-725
Author(s):  
Matteo La Torre ◽  
Svetlana Sabelfeld ◽  
Marita Blomkvist ◽  
John Dumay

Purpose This paper introduces the special issue “Rebuilding trust: Sustainability and non-financial reporting, and the European Union regulation”. Inspired by the studies published in the special issue, this study aims to examine the concept of accountability within the context of the European Union (EU) Directive on non-financial disclosure (hereafter the EU Directive) to offer a critique and a novel perspective for future research into mandatory non-financial reporting (NFR) and to advance future practice and policy. Design/methodology/approach The authors review the papers published in this special issue and other contemporary studies on the topic of NFR and the EU Directive. Findings Accountability is a fundamental concept for building trust in the corporate reporting context and emerges as a common topic linking contemporary studies on the EU Directive. While the EU Directive acknowledges the role of accountability in the reporting practice, this study argues that regulation and practice on NFR needs to move away from an accounting-based conception of accountability to promote accountability-based accounting practices (Dillard and Vinnari, 2019). By analysing the links between trust, accountability and accounting and reporting, the authors claim the need to examine and rethink the inscription of interests into non-financial information (NFI) and its materiality. Hence, this study encourages research and practice to broaden mandatory NFR practice over the traditional boundaries of accountability, reporting and formal accounting systems. Research limitations/implications Considering the challenges posed by the COVID-19 crisis, this study calls for further research to investigate the dialogical accountability underpinning NFR in practice to avoid the trap of focusing on accounting changes regardless of accountability. The authors advocate that what is needed is more timely NFI that develops a dialogue between companies, investors, national regulators, the EU and civil society, not more untimely standalone reporting that has most likely lost its relevance and materiality by the time it is issued to users. Originality/value By highlighting accountability issues in the context of mandatory NFR and its linkages with trust, this study lays out a case for moving the focus of research and practice from accounting-based regulations towards accountability-driven accounting change.


Significance The rulings come as the EU advances legislation to increase transparency on corporate tax rulings and after the G20 on October 9 endorsed the new OECD Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) framework for countering corporate tax avoidance. Impacts These EU rulings suggest similar decisions are imminent involving Apple in Ireland and Amazon in Luxembourg. The rulings will inspire further challenges to similar arrangements; they are the major threat to similar policies. Most BEPS measures will require changes to bilateral tax treaties and could face national-level delays or rejections. Monitoring of BEPS implementation will commence, but compliance will be voluntary and thus limited.


Subject Future EU defence integration. Significance The Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) and the European Defence Fund (EDF) have become key pillars of EU defence policy, but divergence between member states is increasingly making defence integration slow and limited. In addition, opposition towards third-party participation and arms exports, and uncertainty about the future EU-UK security relationship, threaten to diminish the capabilities of future EU defence projects. Impacts London’s exclusion from the EU’s Galileo project suggests Brussels does not want close UK collaboration in future EU initiatives. The EU will likely prioritise steps to enhance European defence industry integration in order to reduce duplication and overspending. National-level defence spending could stall over the coming years as a result of slowing economic growth across the euro-area.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document