Search results

This paper examines the efforts of National Health Service (England) (NHSE) to respond to employee-based racial inequalities via its Workforce Race Equality Standard (WRES). The WRES constitutes a hybridised accountability initiative with characteristics of the moral and imposed regimes of accountability.

The study conceptualises the notion of responsive race accountability with recourse to Favotto et al.’s (2022) moral accountability model and critical race theory (CRT), and through it, examines the enactment of WRES at 40 NHSE trusts using qualitative content analysis.

Despite the progressive nature of the WRES that seeks to nurture corrective actions, results suggest that trusts tend to adopt an instrumental approach to the exercise. Whilst there is some evidence of good practice, the instrumental approach prevails across both the metric reporting that trusts engage in to guide their actions, and the planned actions for progress. These planned actions not only often fail to coalesce with the trust-specific data but also include generic NHSE or equality, diversity and inclusion initiatives and mimetic adoptions of best practice guidance that only superficially address racial concerns.

Whilst the WRES is a laudable voluntary achievement, its moral imperative does not appear to have translated into a moral accountability within individual trusts.

Responding to calls for more research at the accounting-race nexus, this study uniquely draws on CRT to conceptualise and examine race accountability.

Exploiting the mandatory provision of integrated reporting in South Africa, this paper aims to investigate whether this regulatory switch from the conventional annual report is associated with differences in the level of textual risk disclosure (TRD). This paper also examines the economic usefulness of this regulatory change by observing the impact of TRD on the complying firms’ market values.

Archival data are collected and examined using time-series difference design and difference-in-differences design.

The authors find that the level of TRD within the mandatory integrated reporting is significantly lower than that of annual reports. The authors find that the impact of TRD in integrated reporting on market value compared to that of annual reports is statistically not different from zero. The authors’ further analyses suggest that corporate governance effectiveness is not a moderating factor to the study results. The results are robust to comparisons with the voluntary adoption of integrated reporting in the UK.

Collectively, the study results suggest that managers’ adherence to the mandatory provision of integrated reporting has significantly decreased the level of (voluntary) TRD they tended to convey within the conventional annual reports, resulting in a trivial impact on market value. These unintended consequences should be of interest to the International Integrated Reporting Council and other bodies interested in integrated reporting.

The purpose of the study is to explain why there is a conflict in the meaningfulness of integrated reporting (IR) between International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) and analysts and institutional investors using framing theory and suggest a way forward for a meaningful IR to analysts and institutional investors.

The study used qualitative research design in which data was collected from IIRC's document and 21 semi-structured interviews of analysts and fund managers conducted between 2014 and 2015 after the introduction of IIRC framework. This period coincided with prior studies that provide conflicting evidence over the meaningfulness of IR between IIRC and analysts and fund managers.

The findings show that the IIRC from inception uses a preparer-centred frame where it predominantly interprets IR as meaningful from the perspective of preparers of information under ideal conditions, and as such also meaningful to fund managers and analysts. On the other hand, the fund managers and analysts from the onset use a user-centred frame where they interpret IR as not meaningful from their perspective as users of the information under pragmatic conditions. The context making it difficult to reconcile the differentiated frames are the timeframe; absence of trust relationship and balance in reporting.

The study is limited by its qualitative nature meaning that generalisation of findings may not apply. Its data is also limited to IIRC IR Framework, analysts and fund managers as opposed to wider stakeholders.

The practical implication of the findings suggests that if IR is to be made meaningful to analysts and fund managers, the promoters must reconcile the differentiations in frames employed by both the IIRC, analysts and institutional investors. Without this reconciliation IR may not serve the information needs of the intended primary users.

The study uses framing theory to show that time frame, emotional connectedness and data financialisation are attributes that make IR to be considered meaningful to analysts and fund managers. In addition, it provides insight into how the use of organisational and market context influences the framing of the meaningfulness of IR.