Search results

This paper aims to explore the reporting challenges and related organisational mechanisms of change associated with disclosing corporate risks within integrated reports.

This paper adopts a Latourian performative approach to explore the organisational mechanisms of change in terms of networks of actors, both “human” and “non-human”, involved in the preparation of risk-related disclosure. Empirical evidence is collected by means of in-depth interviews with the preparers of an integrated reporting pioneer company.

Preparing disclosure on corporate risks in the context of integrated reporting demands close interaction among several actors. When disclosure shifts from listing key risks to providing information on how these risks are managed or connect with corporate strategy and value creation, departments not usually involved in corporate reporting play an active role and external stakeholders offer pertinent insights, benchmarks and feedback. Integrated reporting and risk management frameworks are the “non-human” actors that facilitate the engagement of diverse “human” actors.

Preparers should be aware that risk disclosure within integrated reports requires collaboration among (“human”) actors belonging to different departments and the engagement of external stakeholders. Preparers should consider the frameworks of integrated reporting and risk management as facilitators of cross-departmental discussions and dialogue, rather than mere contributors of guidelines and recommendations.

This study enriches the scant literature on organisational mechanisms of change made in response to integrated reporting challenges, showing subsequent advancements in the organisational process underlying the preparation of risk disclosure.

This study aims to provide a critical assessment of developments in the field of voluntary corporate non-financial and sustainability reporting and disclosure (VRD). The assessment is grounded in the empirical material of a three-year research project on integrated reporting (IR).

Alvesson and Deetz’s (2021) critical management framework structures the arguments in this paper. By investigating local phenomena and the extant literature, the authors glean insights that they later critique, drawing on the empirical evidence collected during the research project. Transformative redefinitions are then proposed that point to future opportunities for research on voluntary organisational disclosures.

The authors argue that the mainstream approaches to VRD, namely, incremental information and legitimacy theories, present shortcomings in addressing why and how organisations voluntarily disclose information. First, the authors find that companies adopting the International IR Council’s (IIRC, 2021) IR framework tend to comply with the framework only in an informal, rather than a substantial way. Second, the authors find that, at times, organisations serendipitously chance upon VRD practices such as IR instead of rationally recognising the potential ability of such practices to provide useful information for decision-making by investors. Also, powerful groups in organisations may use VRD practices to establish, maintain or restore power balances in their favour.

The paper’s limitations stem directly from its aim to be a critical reflection. Even when grounded on empirics, a reflection is mainly a subjective effort. Therefore, different researchers could come to different conclusions and offer different lessons from the two case studies.

The different rationales the authors found for VRD should make a case for reporting institutions to tone down any investor-centric rhetoric in favour of more substantial disclosures. The findings imply that reporting organisations should approach the different frameworks with a critical eye and read between the lines of these frameworks to determine whether the purported normative arguments are achievable practice.

The authors reflect on timely and relevant issues linked to recent developments in the VRD landscape. Further, the authors offer possible ways forward for critical research that may rely on different methodological choices, such as interventionist and post-structuralist research.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the perceived benefits of integrated reporting (IR) and factors influencing the motives that supervisory board members (SBMs) have for advocating a change towards IR implementation.

An exploratory survey study was conducted to investigate the influence of external market conditions, internal organizational conditions and observed benefits on the motivation to advocate IR adoption in companies that have not yet implemented IR. A unique set of survey data from 62 SBMs of Dutch companies was used for analysing the propositions derived from IR literature and based on institutional theory, legitimacy theory and diffusion of innovation theory.

The respondents indicated to be supportive of IR adoption. SBMs who had experienced the implementation of IR observed that IR offers benefits. Their motives for advocating a change towards IR in companies that had not implemented IR were influenced most by the observed benefits in IR companies. SBMs only involved in companies that had not adopted IR are motivated to support IR adoption to a similar extent. These findings suggest that directly observed benefits by SBMs need to exceed a considerable minimum level before these SBMs are more motived to advocate IR than their peers who have not witnessed the implementation of IR and that experiences are shared across companies. The motivation of both groups is influenced by external market conditions but not by internal organizational conditions.

The findings have implications for potential IR adopters and institutions promoting the further diffusion of IR as they emphasize the need for tangible benefits of IR and confirm that sharing good practices and benefits of IR can provide a catalyst for IR adoption. The findings contribute to the understanding of the motivation of SBMs as an important organizational condition for implementing IR as this study provides insights in the factors that drive this motivation of key actors influencing the decision to implement IR. Furthermore, the finding that these factors predominantly comprise tangible results and external market conditions is relevant from an organizational change perspective.

Understanding the mechanisms of IR-adoption decisions provides a relevant basis for deploying programmes promoting IR as a general reporting standard. This could provide society and a broad range of stakeholders with access to information incorporated in integrated reports. It could ultimately have a major impact on society by improving decision-making and increasing the long-term sustainability of organizations and their relations with stakeholders.

This study provides preliminary empirical evidence concerning the perspectives of SBMs on their motives for advocating IR, based on a unique sample from a country that has been involved with IR from its start.