Search results

This study establishes a baseline evaluation of sustainability reporting (SR) and integrated reporting (IR) practices among groups of companies globally using a combined evaluation matrix. We evaluate a sample of high performance companies (HPC), global reporting initiative (GRI) companies, international integrated reporting committee (IIRC) companies, and a control group of companies that do not belong to any of these groups. We test for high performance and compliance with a 30-point evaluation matrix for financial reporting, corporate governance, integrated disclosure, SR, and assurance developed from the standards set by GRI and IIRC. This chapter provides evidence as to the current IR and SR states, and shows that considerable variation exists even among companies that have pledged to improve reporting in this arena. The analysis also shows that companies that belong to no special group do in fact score on a level that shows that SR and IR standards are being implemented by many companies in the world, not just those in special groups like the HPC, GRI, and IIRC. Finally, this study provides direction for global regulators and professional associations, and to the management of companies that aspire to HPC status while meeting the IR and SR standards.

The present study investigates whether companies that exhibit high performance characteristics in the pre-financial crisis period can maintain their high performance in the financial crisis period of 2007–2009 and, in particular, the post-financial crisis period of 2010–2011.

The current study of 1,473 companies in 25 countries and 66 industries (MSCI index) (1) extends the empirical research of prior studies through the year 2011; (2) identifies the operating characteristics (performance drivers and performance measures) and associated risk factors which were most critical with regard to sustaining, exiting, and entering HPC companies during the five 10-year periods since 1998–2007, and (3) summarizes conclusions about HPC results from the 13 ten-year periods (1989–1998 to 2002–2011) in this stream of research.

(1) Companies that sustain high performance over periods of financial stress clearly excel in asset turnover performance driver and on the performance measures of growth in revenues, profit margin, return on equity and return on assets. Sustaining HPC had less debt than other companies and consistent cash flow yields. Operating turnover ratios became less important in recent years as an indicator of high performance. (2) Although exiting companies maintained profitability, financial risk and liquidity, the key factor in their dropping out of HPC status is their failure to grow revenues. (3) Entering companies did not exhibit the superior performance in all categories.

The results provide strategic direction for management of companies that aspire to HPC status and to maintain HPC status once gained, particularly in times of global financial stress.

Prior research shows that companies that achieve high performance excel at certain financial objectives. This chapter addresses the question: Do companies that excel at these financial performance objectives also excel in integrated reporting and sustainability reporting?

We compare a sample of high performance companies (HPC) with a sample of companies that purport to support integrated reporting, and a sample that purport to support sustainability reporting. Our hypotheses are that HPC will equal or exceed the integrated reporting and sustainability reporting practices shown by International Integrated Reporting Committee (IIRC) and Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) companies and US companies will be less at these practices than non-US companies.

Our findings indicate that IIRC companies and GRI companies generally do not meet the high financial performance measures of the HPC. Based on an integrated reporting and sustainability reporting matrix, we show that HPC exhibit equal performance on the practices of sustainability and integrated reporting compared to GRI companies, but both HPC and GRI are lower on these practices than IIRC companies. Also, US companies disclose less information in sustainability reports and integrated reports as compared to non-US companies. Overall, all three groups fall short of full compliance with standards of integrated reporting and sustainability reporting.

This chapter provides evidence as to the financial performance and the current state of integrated reporting and sustainability reporting among HPC, GRI, and IIRC companies. This chapter highlights the global need for a generally accepted set of standards for sustainability and integrated reporting practices.

Purpose – This study investigates the links between strategy, execution, and financial performance with particular attention to the underlying performance drivers that describe how a company executes strategy to create financial value.

Methodology – This study empirically investigates companies in the United States and 22 other countries over a 20-year period (11 successive 10n-year periods: 1988–2007): (1) to compare financial performance characteristics of HPC versus non-HPC; (2) to study the sustainability of performance in HPC; and (3) to identify the companies that exit or enter the HPC classification and the performance drivers and performance measures that characterized the change in HPC classification.

Findings – The 20-year longitudinal results confirm the results of prior studies as to the long-term superior performance of HPC over other companies (Objective 1). For sustaining HPC, results were consistent as to total asset management, profitability, financial risk, and liquidity (Objective 2). Declining HPC companies fail at total asset management, profitability, and operating asset management and significantly increase their financial risk. Emerging HPC companies improve liquidity through improved operating asset management and cash flows (Objective 3).

Practical implications – To become a HPC management must generate increased cash flows from income, manage receivables and inventory vigorously, and reduce its debt in relation to equity. Thereafter, management must concentrate on maintaining its asset turnover and growth in revenues while maintaining its profit margin and not increasing its debt to equity.

Value of the paper – The results provide direction for management of companies that aspire to HPC status and to maintain HPC status.

The study aims to contribute to the debate on how to identify and manage an organization’s sustainability-related resources and processes by understanding the impact of business activities on the environment and evaluating actions to ameliorate their impacts. Within this debate, and specifically taking into consideration the opportunity to support circular economy actions and initiatives, the study focuses on integrated reporting (IR) practices. In detail, this study advocates the joint use of IR principles with the dynamic resource-based view (DRBV) of the firm, adopting their representation of resources and impact of the business activities to identify environmental friendly “hot spots” in organizations. The framework is illustrated through two exploratory case studies.

Academics, practitioners, and standard setters have highlighted the importance of focusing on the relevance of nonfinancial reporting disclosures, calling for a debate on how best to develop corporative communicative skills with different stakeholders to conduct proper materiality analysis. To this end, the need for an inclusive process is widely acknowledged, where engagement and close relationships between an organization and its various stakeholders are crucial to identifying the main issues that the company should consider in a materiality analysis. In this chapter, an analysis of integrated reporting (IR) will be performed as an innovative corporate communication instrument that offers a complete picture of corporate performance and the important role of the concept of materiality. Then, the concept of the materiality process will be explored in a set of Spanish early adopters of IR, which will help us understand IR technology within the organizational realm and will shed some light on the materiality determination process as a communicative tool. The study revealed five main themes connected to the materiality determination process: materiality conceptualization, sources of evidence on materiality, prioritization of stakeholder engagement, the perceived advantages of the process, and its problems. The final section will set out the future challenges of IR engagement and the research opportunities that are associated with this innovative form of communicative reporting.

This study examines the links between financial performance and executive compensation for high-performance companies (HPC). HPC display sustained and superior cash flow returns, asset growth, and total shareholder returns. In previous empirical analysis, HPC companies displayed specific identifiable financial performance drivers and measures when compared to companies in the S&P 500 (Needles et al., 2004). Most recently, HPC sustained their high performance when compared to the S&P 500 over varied economic periods. Further, the research identified operating asset management characteristics of these companies, especially as they relate to the cash cycle (Needles et al., 2004). Continuing this stream of research, this study first identifies the financial and non-financial performance measures related to compensation of top management of HPC as reported in the companies’ public disclosures. Then, these findings for HPC are matched to a set of comparable non-HPC. Finally, we evaluate the stated performance measures for executive compensation in light of the performance drivers and measures identified by previous research to be distinguishing characteristics of HPC. We hypothesize that HPC will more closely align stated performance measures for executive compensation with performance characteristics that have been shown to be characteristics of HPC. We find that HPC are more focused and unambiguous in their use of both financial and non-financial performance measures in executive compensation.