Integrated reporting and the capitals’ diffusion -Gibassier, Adams, and Jérôme -20191Integrated Reporting and the Capitals’ Diffusion

Abstract

The idea of “integrated reporting” has been in the mind of business organizations, the accounting profession, and academics for 40 years now, with the first reports being published in the early 2000s. “For many years, integrated reporting has been something of a holy grail for advocates of accountability, something that has not been achieved through most efforts at triple bottom line reporting” (Todd, 2005, p. 3). However today, “[…] we are perhaps witnessing the early stages of widespread promulgation of a different way of thinking about corporate success and reporting” (Adams, 2015, p. 23).
Six years after the publication of the first integrated reporting framework (the IR Framework from the IIRC) that embodies the idea of « integrated reporting », three researchers have investigated the diffusion of this accounting innovation.

Their research makes the following new contributions to our understanding of integrated reporting:
• Their research outlines several new countries that have a large number of integrated reports and have not been investigated in depth: Sri Lanka and Mexico for example.
• It demonstrates the high proportion of industries linked to “intangibles” that publish integrated reports.
• Their research contrasts the impression given by earlier research that only large companies publish integrated reports, as 42% of companies have less than 5,000 employees.
• Despite previous acknowledgement of the large joint use between the GRI and integrated reporting (83% according to the WBCSD (2018)), they find that only a little over 50% acknowledge both approaches together.
• Our research also outlines that a large number of companies have now adopted the title “integrated report”, which demonstrates a deepening of adoption.

Full text

Integrated reporting and the capitals’ diffusion - Gibassier, Adams, and Jérôme - 2019! 1!
Integrated Reporting and the Capitals’ Diffusion
Delphine Gibassier*
Associate Professor of Accounting for Sustainable Development
Audencia Business School
8 Route de la Jonelière, 44312 Nantes, France
Email: dgibassier@audencia.com
Carol Adams
Professor of Accounting
Durham University Business School
Durham University, Durham, DH1 3LB, UK
Email: carol.adams@durham.ac.uk
Swinburne Business School
Swinburne University, Melbourne, Australia
Email: caadams@swin.edu.au
Tiphaine Jérôme
Maître de conférences
Univ. Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble INP*, CERAG, 38000 Grenoble, France
* Institute of Engineering Univ. Grenoble Alpes
Email: tiphaine.jerome@univ-grenoble-alpes.fr
Project financed by the Autorité des Normes Comptables - 2017/2018
We would like to thank Yann Buffet, Anne-Claire Savy-Angeli, and Sarah Segond, for their immense help in
gathering the data necessary to put together this report.
* Corresponding author

Integrated reporting and the capitals’ diffusion - Gibassier, Adams, and Jérôme - 2019! 2!
Integrated Reporting and the Capitals’ Diffusion
Overview
1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 3!
2. Review of current knowledge on integrated reporting and capitals’ diffusion .............. 5!
2.1. An adoption that dates back prior to 2013 ...................................................................... 5!
2.2. A rapid adoption of integrated reporting ........................................................................ 6!
2.3. The determinants of the adoption of integrated reporting .............................................. 6!
3. Review of the institutional context leading to the adoption of integrated reporting ..... 9!
3.1. 1975 to 2002: the creation of the need of integrated reporting ....................................... 9!
3.2. 2002 to 2010: the early adopters ................................................................................... 10!
3.3. 2010 to 2013: the rise of integrated reporting ............................................................... 11!
3.4. 2013 to today: the consolidation of integrated reporting .............................................. 14!
4. Research design .................................................................................................................. 15!
4.1. Sample selection and reports available ......................................................................... 15!
4.2. Coding of the reports .................................................................................................... 18!
4.3. Other variables .............................................................................................................. 19!
5. Diffusion of integrated reporting ...................................................................................... 19!
5.1. Geography ..................................................................................................................... 20!
5.2. Industry ......................................................................................................................... 22!
5.3. Size ................................................................................................................................ 23!
5.4. Listing status ................................................................................................................. 24!
5.5. Links with major frameworks ....................................................................................... 24!
6. Depth of adoption ............................................................................................................... 25!
6.1. Definition of depth of adoption of integrated reporting ................................................ 25!
6.2. Naming of the report ..................................................................................................... 27!
7. Disclosure of capitals ......................................................................................................... 29!
8. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 30!
Glossary .................................................................................................................................. 32!
Appendix: Definition of the six capitals ............................................................................... 33!
Table of contents .................................................................................................................... 34!
List of Tables .......................................................................................................................... 36!
References ............................................................................................................................... 37!

Integrated reporting and the capitals’ diffusion - Gibassier, Adams, and Jérôme - 2019! 3!
Integrated Reporting and the Capitals’ Diffusion
1. Introduction
The idea of “integrated reporting” has been in the mind of business organizations, the
accounting profession, and academics for 40 years now, with the first reports being published
in the early 2000s. “For many years, integrated reporting has been something of a holy grail for
advocates of accountability, something that has not been achieved through most efforts at triple
bottom line reporting” (Todd, 2005, p. 3). However today, “[…] we are perhaps witnessing the
early stages of widespread promulgation of a different way of thinking about corporate success
and reporting” (Adams, 2015, p. 23).
Despite difficulties to bring the idea to fruition, the first integrated reports appeared after 2002.
In 2005, already 12 reports were considered “integrated” (Todd, 2005), and this number has
risen considerably after 2010. The adoption of integrated reporting is growing rapidly: in 2018,
33% of surveyed reports in the “Reporting Matters” report from the World Business Council
for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), against 22% in 2014, combined financial and non-
financial information, and 18% were self-declared integrated reports. Today, our unique and
most recent integrated reports database, built on reports published in 2017 on 2016 data,
contains 1,367 integrated reports. Therefore, it is time to look back on the diffusion of integrated
reporting, and analyse how and why this managerial innovation has changed the corporate
reporting landscape.
In 2005, Todd (2005, p. 1) defined integrated reporting as “[…] reporting that meets the needs
of both statutory financial reporting and sustainability reporting. In practical terms, this will
usually mean one annual report containing sustainability performance information and financial
statements”. Today, integrated reporting is usually defined through the IIRC (International
Integrated Reporting Council) framework’s definition as “[…] a concise communication about
how an organisation’s strategy, governance, performance and prospects, in the context of its
external environment, lead to the creation of value over a short, medium and long term” (IIRC,
2013, paragraph 1.1).
According to Adams (2015, p. 23), integrated reporting offers a bold and worthy approach that
encourages organisations to “[…] think longer term, consider what value means, to whom and
to acknowledge the role of staff, broader society and the environment in creating it […]”.
Integrated reporting has been said to be a way for companies to integrate sustainability better
to their corporate strategy through integrated thinking (Gibassier et al., 2016). According to the
South African Institute of Chartered Accountants (SAICA, 2015), more than 70% of the
executive and nonexecutive directors that they interrogated felt that decision making had
improved as a result of integrated thinking efforts. Moreover, integrated reporting can become
a means for companies to attract long-term investors who are more likely to work in a
partnership with companies and support organizational transformation (Gibassier et al., 2016;
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), 2013; IIRC, 2017). The main challenge however remains
“[…] to merge the financial and sustainability stories in a meaningful and yet rigorous way”
(Todd, 2005, p. 2). According to interviews conducted by the GRI (2013, p. 28), the decision
to issue an integrated report “[…] steered the company away from the development of a separate

Integrated reporting and the capitals’ diffusion - Gibassier, Adams, and Jérôme - 2019 4
sustainability report which could silo the topic, and instead drove towards an integrated report
with a vision of sustainability and corporate social responsibility (CSR) being sustainability
embedded in the core ‘genes’ of the business”.
Despite its apparent benefits, the diffusion of integrated reporting has been scarce up to 2010.
Many were advocating a clear framework, which was then published by the IIRC in December
2013. Several years after its publication, it is now time to turn back and analyse the diffusion
of integrated reporting from 2002 to today (Cheng et al., 2014). Therefore, we consider: where
and by whom was integrated reporting adopted? In what way was it adopted? Is the reporting
on “capitals” being adopted as well?
Therefore, this report will quantitatively analyse integrated reporting to determine:
1. the extent of diffusion of integrated reporting across five dimensions: geography,
industry, company size, listing status, and the link with major sustainability reporting
frameworks.
2. the depth of integrated reporting adoption; and
3. the extent and nature of the disclosure of multiple capitals.
This report makes several contributions:
● Development of a worldwide database of the most recent integrated reports drawing on
several recognized sources of data (the GRI, the IIRC examples database, and the
Corporate Register database of integrated reporting reports). This allows us to have one
of the most complete and recent views of the phenomenon of integrated reporting
adoption and diffusion worldwide
1
. In 2017, the IIRC had 549 reports in their database
and estimated that adoption was around 1,600 worldwide. However, they only partially
explain how they came about this number
2
. To our knowledge, there are no other
complete overview of IR adoption worldwide to date.
● Analysis of both the diffusion of integrated reporting, a managerial innovation that was
developed over the last forty years and took shape as early as 2002, and the adoption of
the IIRC 2013 <IR>
3
Framework.
● Analysis of the extent to which the adoption of the integrated reporting is linked to the
use of the GRI standard, and if there is a link between adopting integrated reporting and
the adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
● Definition of four levels of depth of diffusion of integrated reporting.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
1
In this respect, Eccles et al. (2019, p. 5) note that they “[…] have not found a website or other data source that
provides accurate information about the number of companies world-wide that have adopted integrated reporting”.
2
https://integratedreporting.org/integratedreport2017/integrated_report/performance/increasing_the_pace_and_s
cale_of_ir_adoption.html
3
We use <IR> to refer to the International <IR> Framework developed by the IIRC.

Integrated reporting and the capitals’ diffusion - Gibassier, Adams, and Jérôme - 2019 5
● Analysis of the diffusion of the six capitals, one of the key elements of integrated
reporting, which is currently shaping the future of non-financial accounting (Gleeson-
White, 2015).
Our report is composed of the following sections. Section two reviews our current knowledge
of integrated reporting and capitals’ diffusion to date, and the determinants used to explain
diffusion. Section three reviews the institutional context leading to the adoption of integrated
reporting. Section four explains our research design. Sections five, six, and seven report on our
findings, and section eight concludes.
2. Review of current knowledge on integrated reporting and capitals’
diffusion
2.1. An adoption that dates back prior to 2013
According to Eccles and Serafeim (2011), the first company to issue an integrated report was
the Danish bio-industrial products company, Novozymes, in 2002. Then Natura, a Brazilian
cosmetics company, issued an integrated report in 2003, and finally the Danish diabetes care
company Novo Nordisk did the same in 2004.
As of 2005, 12 reports were considered by Todd (2005) as integrated: BAA, BC Hydro,
Boehringer Ingelheim, CIBC, CPFL Energia, Dofasco, Norsk Hydro, Novartis, Novo Nordisk,
PepsiCo, Renault, and Sydney Water (note that Natura, which Eccles and Serafeim consider an
integrated report, is not in that list: definitions of “integrated reports” vary). At the time, Todd
(2005, p. 5) gave detailed elements to recognize “integration”:
● “Including social, economic and environmental performance in the performance
highlights of the report;
● Explaining the company’s sustainability vision in the message from the Chair/Chief
Executive;
● Identifying material risks associated with social or environmental factors in
management’s discussion and analysis;
● Describing the social and environmental accounting policies with as much detail as the
financial policies;
● Explaining how CSR/sustainability policies and performance are relevant to business
success; and
● Providing a detailed and interactive GRI index.”
Following this first group of integrated reporters, the first American company to publish an
integrated report was United Technologies Corporation in 2008, followed by American Electric
Power, Pfizer, and Southwest Airlines (Eccles and Serrafeim, 2011).
In South Africa, the uptake of integrated reporting was important early on: around 50% of listed
companies on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE) had published an integrated report in
2011, in compliance with the King Report on Governance for South Africa (the King III report)
(Deloitte, 2012).

Integrated reporting and the capitals’ diffusion - Gibassier, Adams, and Jérôme - 2019 6
In 2013, a survey by the GRI (2013) found an increase in companies publishing self-declared
integrated reports, based on their reporting database input, from 14% in 2010 to 20% in 2011.
2.2. A rapid adoption of integrated reporting
As integrated reporting was being defined and framed from 2010 to 2013, Robertson and Samy
(2015, p. 216) note “[…] the rapid development of IR policy and practice compared to a
multitude of prior corporate reporting initiatives that have failed to diffuse into widespread
practices”. In their 2018 report “Reporting Matters”, the WBCSD states that 33% have
combined report (financial and non-financial information), compared to 22% in 2014, and 18%
are self-declared integrated reports. These elements pose several questions: what are the drivers
of this rapid adoption, and what is the depth of this adoption?
2.3. The determinants of the adoption
4
of integrated reporting
2.3.1. The institutional national environment
Using data from 2009, Eccles and Serafeim (2011) note that 48.25% of their company sample
were practicing some degree of integration in the reporting of environmental information and,
for social information, it was 44.07%. This indicates some degree of readiness of companies
for integrated reporting. Companies from countries in Europe (United Kingdom, France,
Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Portugal, Belgium, Luxembourg, Italy) as well as
Russia, South Africa, and Brazil are practicing integration the most (Eccles and Serafeim,
2011).
In 2012, the GRI report (2013) found that 58% of self-declared integrated reports had been
published by European organizations. In terms of single countries, South Africa, the
Netherlands, Brazil, and Australia are the countries that have published the most self-declared
integrated reports for 2012 (GRI, 2013). There is a strong argument to look further for country-
specific drivers of integrated reporting.
Jensen and Berg (2012) tested several institutional contextual factors, based on the framework
of Matten and Moon (2008), we outline their results below.
The country’s economic system
According to Jensen and Berg (2012), integrated reporting is more common in more highly
developed countries. An exception to this is South Africa where Adams (2017) found that social
and economic risks were found to drive the significance of integrated reporting and the benefits
to be reaped from it.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
4
We do not discuss here the determinants of some of the characteristics of information disclosed. For example,
Fasan and Mio (2017) investigate the determinants of materiality disclosure in integrated reports. Nor do we
discuss the consequences of adopting integrated reporting (see, for example, Barth et al., 2017; Bernardi and Stark,
2018; García-Sánchez and Noguera-Gámez, 2017a; García-Sánchez and Noguera-Gámez, 2017b; Mervelskemper
and Streit, 2017; Serafeim, 2015; Zhou et al., 2017). Finally, there are also empirical studies on how the
information contained in integrated reports is perceived (see for instance Robertson and Samy (2015) or
Reimsbach et al. (2018)).

Integrated reporting and the capitals’ diffusion - Gibassier, Adams, and Jérôme - 2019 7
The country’s financial system
According to Jensen and Berg (2012), integrated reporting companies are significantly more
likely to originate from countries with a stronger market orientation, and from countries which
demonstrate a higher ownership dispersion (such as in Europe, in opposition to the UK (United
Kingdom) or the US (United States)).
The country’s educational and labour system
Jensen and Berg (2012, p. 21) further argue that “[…] companies with high involvement in
tertiary education show a strong interest in new research findings and academic knowledge and
will thus adopt new management techniques more rapidly”, and this hypothesis is validated.
Additionally, integrated reporting is more likely to be issued from countries with a higher trade
union density (Jensen and Berg, 2012).
The country’s cultural system
A country with higher level of secular-rational values encourages integrated reporting (Jensen
and Berg, 2012). Using a global sample, García-Sánchez et al. (2013) show that companies
located in countries most oriented towards the common good (i.e. collectivist and feminist
countries) show a greater interest in preparing an integrated report. This finding is partially
confirmed by Vaz et al. (2016) who showed that there is a positive association between
integrated reporting adoption and collectivism.
The country’s legal system
According to Robertson and Samy (2015), integrated reporting was more likely to be adopted
if companies were in industries that were highly regulated. Steyn (2014) found that compliance
was the main driver for integrated reporting in South Africa, where it is a legal requirement to
do so. However, according to Campbell (2004), the presence of specific regulations is not
enough, and the State must have proven its capacity to monitor corporate behaviour and
enforcement of regulation must be in place. Finally, Frías-Aceituno et al. (2013a, p. 51-52)
demonstrate that firms that are located in civil law countries have “[…] a higher level of interest
in disclosing integrated information than are those based in common law countries”. Those
countries are those with a strong coercive and regulatory pressure, with a well-developed legal
system in place (Frías-Aceituno et al., 2013a). However, Jensen and Berg (2012, p. 309), in
testing the same hypothesis, that is “[…] companies from civil law countries are more likely to
publish integrated reports”, could not find empirical support. They also demonstrated that “IR
is significantly more likely to be published in countries with stronger investor protection laws
[…]” (p. 309) and “IR companies are significantly more likely to originate from countries with
weaker employment protection laws” (p. 309).
Adams (2017) examined the different institutional drivers for integrated reporting in South
Africa and Australia. Different regulation with respect to governance, particularly Director’s
liability, was found to influence the take up of integrated reporting.

Integrated reporting and the capitals’ diffusion - Gibassier, Adams, and Jérôme - 2019 8
2.3.2. The firm specific drivers
Industry
According to Wild and van Staden (2013), mimetic isomorphism is a driving force of integrated
reporting adoption, equivalent to “de-facto” industry-wide norms of good reporting behaviour.
This was confirmed by interviews realized by Robertson and Samy (2015, p. 211) where it was
emphasized that “[…] it was important to follow best practice and to keep up with their peer
group within the industry they operate”.
Results by the GRI (2013) confirm that already certain sectors are leading in experimenting
with integrated reporting such as financial services, energy utilities, energy, and mining.
Financial services’ self-declared integrated reports (35 in 2012) were almost double the
numbers being published by other sectors (GRI, 2013). This is also confirmed by Wild and van
Staden (2013), based on companies present in the IIRC examples database. They confirm that
integrated reporting adopters are not dominated “by high social and environmental impact
industries as suggested in current literature”. Frías-Aceituno et al. (2014) fail to show an
industry influence on the adoption of integrated reporting, but they show the negative impact
of industry concentration on the production of an integrated report.
Company image
Companies are incentivized to implement integrated reporting because of reputational risk.
Nearly all of the interviewees conducted by Robertson and Samy (2015) cited integrated
reporting as a way of improving corporate image, and enhancing corporate legitimacy.
Status
The GRI (2013) found that private companies
5
was the largest source (77%) of self-declared
integrated reports in 2012, followed by state-owned companies at 16%.
Size
Frías-Aceituno et al. (2013a; 2013b; 2014) as well as Sierra-García et al. (2015) showed that
larger firms are more likely to publish an integrated report while Lai et al. (2016) found no
effect of firm size on integrated reporting adoption.
Governance and ownership
Frías-Aceituno et al. (2013b) showed that larger boards and boards with a higher percentage of
women board members are more likely to issue an integrated report.
Integrated reporting adoption is also driven by the willingness of companies to attract more
socially responsible investors or long-term investors, or to respond to increasing requests from
that type of investors. Ownership type is therefore a key driver of integrated reporting adoption
(Eccles and Serafeim, 2011; Robertson and Samy, 2015).
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
5
GRI defines a “private company” as: “a business organization owned either by a small number of stakeholders,
shareholders, or by a nongovernmental organization”.

Integrated reporting and the capitals’ diffusion - Gibassier, Adams, and Jérôme - 2019 9
3. Review of the institutional context leading to the adoption of integrated
reporting
Integrated reporting “forms the latest part of an ‘evolution’ of corporate reporting over the past
three decades that builds on earlier developments which extended the provision of information
to stakeholders” (Wild and van Staden, 2013, p. 5).
The first driver for the inclusion of more non-financial information into corporate reporting is
the change in value creation. While 83% of market value could be explained by physical and
financial assets in 1975, this value was only 19% in 2009 (IIRC, 2011). As of today, financial
information does not explain the value creation process anymore. The inclusion of non-financial
information can provide insights into the company’s expected future financial performance,
something that financial performance cannot do alone (Eccles and Serafeim, 2011).
The second driver of integrated reporting is the rapid evolution of environmental degradation.
In their Vision 2050 report, the WBCSD (2010) demonstrated that with greenhouse gas
emissions that keep rising, the environmental degradation that jeopardizes people’s health and
quality of life, and the scarcity of natural resources, the need for the inclusion of non-financial
information, notably on natural capital, was pressing.
3.1. 1975 to 2002: the creation of the need of integrated reporting
According to Thomson (2015, p. 19), the integrated report is “[…] the latest in a long line of
proposed reforms to Financial Reporting and bears similarities to The Corporate Report (ASSC,
1975), the Corporate Social Accounting (Estes, 1976), Making Corporate Reports Valuable
(ICAS, 1988), The Greening of Accountancy (Gray, 1990) […]”.
Elliott (1992, p. 74), a KPMG partner, said about financial accounting that is was a “[…]
second-wave term” that “[…] limits the reporting entity’s accountability to financial
information, and third-wave entities have external accountabilities that go beyond financial
information”. He went on and insisted that “much of what users want to know about the
company is non-financial” (Elliott, 1992, p. 74).
In 1997, John Elkington coined the term “triple bottom line” whereby a company reports on its
economic, environmental, and social performance (Eccles and Serafeim, 2011). Following this
ground-breaking idea, the GRI was created in 1997 by the Coalition for Environmentally
Responsible Economies, now known as the Coalition for Environmentally Responsible
Economies (CERES), and the Tellus Institute. Table 1 below summarizes the premises of
integrated reporting.

Integrated reporting and the capitals’ diffusion - Gibassier, Adams, and Jérôme - 2019 10
Table 1: The premises of integrated reporting (adapted from Gibassier et al., 2016)
Year
Event
1975
ASSC: “The Corporate Report”, London, England
1976
Estes: “Corporate Social Accounting”, Wiley, NY
1988
ICAS: “Making Corporate Reports Valuable”, Scotland
1989
First sustainability reports published (Polaroid, Ben & Jerry’s, and others)
1990
Gray: “The Greening of Accountancy. The Profession after Pearce”, ACCA
1992
Elliot: “The Third Wave Breaks on the Shore of Accounting”, Accounting
Horizons
1997
The GRI was launched
2001
The Value Reporting Initiative (PricewaterhouseCoopers)
2001
The Better Reporting Initiative (KPMG)
3.2. 2002 to 2010: the early adopters
In 2005, two important reports were issued that mark the first use of the word “integrated
reporting”: the Vancity report by Todd (2005) and the report entitled “New Wine, New Bottles:
The Rise of Non-Financial Reporting” by White (2005). He said “integrated reporting is a fluid,
fast-moving work in progress. New norms and measurement methods appear on a regular basis”
(p. 4), demonstrating that during that period, the movement for integrated reporting was formed
and would lead to the adoption of this format and the possible standardization of its form. He
stated “non-financial reporting will succeed not because of specific indicators, measurement
techniques, formatting or communications strategies. Instead, it will succeed because it offers
stakeholders what financial reporting alone fails to offer […]” (p. 5) and defined integrated
reporting as “[…] a window on the character and competency of the reporting company” (p. 5).
In 2005, according to Todd, there was no “[…] significant external demand for integrated
reporting, yet. The main drivers are likely to be internal” (2005, p. 2). However, “some believe
that effectively integrating the information from annual reports and sustainability reports would
give non-financial information more weight and improve decision making by a wide range of
actors” (Todd, 2005, p. 3) because sustainability reports were only “secondary”, to “real”
financial annual reports (Todd, 2005). By putting the sustainability agenda within the main
communication mean of a company (the annual integrated report), early adopters believed it
would allow the topic to be raised at annual general meetings, but also allow financial analysis
to take into accounting sustainability information to make better decisions, and finally to have
sustainability performance rewarded through the markets (Todd, 2005). With respect to Todd’s
assertion regarding the early importance of internal drivers, Adams and Frost (2008) found that
organisations were already integrating environmental and social indicators into strategic
planning performance measurement and decision making including risk management.!
Early reporters said in interviews conducted by Todd in 2005 that integrated reporting was “[…]
the natural expression of the company’s values and its approach to business” (p. 6) and they
found that it “[…] ‘just made sense’ to integrate their performance reporting” (Todd, 2005,
p. 6). A third reason mentioned by early reporters was that it would benefit their reputation
“[…] by communicating their sustainability performance to a wider audience or by
demonstrating innovation in reporting” (Todd, 2005, p. 6).

Integrated reporting and the capitals’ diffusion - Gibassier, Adams, and Jérôme - 2019 11
The Prince of Wales’s Accounting for Sustainability Project (A4S) developed the Connected
Reporting Framework in 2007. This Framework aims to expose how organizational activities
can be reported in a connected way that reflects corporate strategy and management (Gibassier
et al., 2016). Several organizations participated in the testing phase (Aviva, BT Group, EDF
Energy, Hammerson, HSBC Bank, and Northern Foods) and their experience was reported in
the book “Accounting for Sustainability: Practical Insights” (Hopwood et al., 2010). Finally, in
2010, the idea of integrated reporting was formalized by Eccles and Krzus in their book “One
report”.
Table 2 presents the early adopters and summarizes the main events that have marked the
institutional context.
Table 2: Early adopters and the institutional environment (adapted from Gibassier et al.,
2016)
Year
Event
2002
First integrated reports published: Novozymes (2002), Natura (2003), and Novo
Nordisk (2004)
2005
White from Tellus Institute calls for integrated reporting in “New Wine, New
Bottles: The Rise of Non-Financial Reporting”
2005
Vancity Report on Integrated Reporting
2007
First guideline “Connected Reporting Framework,” was published by A4S
2010
First book published about integrated reporting by Eccles and Krzus, “One
Report: Integrated Reporting for a Sustainable Strategy”, Wiley, NY
2010
Academic work on the <IR> Framework, “Workshop on Integrated Reporting:
Frameworks and Action Plan,” commenced at Harvard Business School
3.3. 2010 to 2013: the rise of integrated reporting
3.3.1. The South African lead
Chapter 9 of the King III report (led by Professor Mervyn King), published in 2010, laid out
the three principles of integrated reporting. Companies listed on the JSE had to follow the
principles of the King III report on an “apply or explain” basis. This obligation also led to wider
adoption of integrated reporting amongst large state-owned companies but also other privately
held companies in South Africa (WBCSD, 2014).
Following the King III report, an Integrated Reporting Committee was created. It published on
January 25, 2011 in South Africa the world’s first guidance document for companies practicing
integrated reporting, “the new Framework for Integrated Reporting and the Integrated Report
Discussion Paper”.
3.3.2. The IIRC and the <IR> Framework
On August 2, 2010, A4S and the GRI announced the formation of the IIRC. Its objective was
to create a globally accepted framework for integrated reporting and to present proposals for a
framework at the time of the G20 meeting in November 2011.

Integrated reporting and the capitals’ diffusion - Gibassier, Adams, and Jérôme - 2019 12
According to Peat (2010), the mission of the IIRC is to “[…] help develop a new internationally
accepted approach to reporting; an approach which provides more comprehensive
information about the full range of an organisation’s impacts and performance, past and
future, in a clear, concise, consistent and comparable manner. In other words, to help develop
reports that not only provide financial information, but information about an organisation’s
governance, social and environmental performance; and not in disconnected sections or
silos but in an integrated manner, which reflects the reality that all these elements (financial,
governance, social and environmental) are closely related and inter-dependent and flow from
the organisation’s overall strategy” (Peat, IIRC newsletter, 2010
6
).
In September 2011, the Integrated Reporting Discussion Paper (“Towards Integrated Reporting
- Communicating Value in the 21st Century”) was published. In July 2012, the IIRC circulated
a “Draft Outline of the Integrated Reporting Framework”. The outline establishes for the first
time the basic structure of the future Framework. A draft framework was then circulated in
2013, before the final version of the Framework was published in December 2013.
By the end of 2011, over 50 companies had joined the pilot program, there were 80 in 2012. In
total, 100 participated in the pilot program of the IIRC from 2011 to 2013. As the findings of
Adams et al. (2016) indicate, the reach of integrated reporting was far wider than this group as
other companies followed these new developments in reporting practice albeit not calling their
reports integrated reports.
3.3.3. Other institutional context favourable to the development of integrated reporting
In France, the 2010 French Grenelle II Law “requires that companies include in their annual
reports a section on the social and environmental consequences of their activities and set forth
their commitment to sustainable development”
7
. This, however, leads to the lowest possible
level of integration, that is the combination in one report of financial and sustainability
information. There is not yet evidence that this has led to the adoption of integrated reports. It
may even have potentially led to some French companies not adopting, or adopting integrated
reporting later than in other countries. So far, we can only say that the French Grenelle law has
led to the advancement of integration of financial and non-financial information within the same
document.
In 2010, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) published interpretive guidance
on existing disclosure requirements as they apply to business or legal developments relating to
climate change. These disclosures should be integrated in the SEC filings (Gibassier et al.,
2016).
In 2010, the Dutch government issued its intention to switch to 100% sustainable procurement,
pushing companies to prove that they would comply with this requirement (GRI, 2013).
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
6
http://iirc.newsweaver.co.uk/newsletter/1ja775usz5leq5jjkzjymy
7
http://www.loc.gov/law/foreign-news/article/france-law-on-national-commitment-for-the-environment/

Integrated reporting and the capitals’ diffusion - Gibassier, Adams, and Jérôme - 2019 13
In Finland, in 2011, the government adopted a resolution requesting non-listed state-owned
companies and state majority-owned companies to report on their sustainability performance
(GRI, 2013).
The Brazilian stock exchange encouraged sustainability disclosures as early as 2011 through a
recommendation named “Report or Explain for Sustainability or Integrated Reports”
8
, which
was renewed several times including in 2014.
In 2012, the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Coalition (CSRC), composed of pension funds,
asset managers, church organizations, charities and professional bodies, called on United
Nations Rio+20 participants to agree on significant changes in corporate reporting. In an open
letter, they said: “we are asking participants at Rio+20 to commit to developing a UN agreement
on sustainability reporting so that we, as investors, can help guide the world towards a
sustainable future”
9
.
Also at the Rio+20 conference, a group of countries (Brazil, Denmark, France, and South
Africa), named the “Group of Friends of Paragraph 47”, declared: “We acknowledge the
importance of corporate sustainability reporting and encourage companies, where appropriate,
especially publicly listed and large companies, to consider integrating sustainability
information into their reporting cycle. We encourage industry, interested governments and
relevant stakeholders with the support of the United Nations system, as appropriate, to develop
models for best practice and facilitate action for the integration of sustainability reporting,
taking into account experiences from already existing frameworks and paying particular
attention to the needs of developing countries, including for capacity-building”
10
.
In October 2012, the Russian <IR> regional network was launched. Also in October 2012, the
Institute of Chartered Accountants of Sri Lanka (CA Sri Lanka) hosted the international
conference on <IR>.
In November 2012, the IIRC held the <IR> Tokyo Forum in conjunction with the Tokyo Stock
Exchange (TSE) and the Japanese Institute of Certified Public Accountants (JICPA), to discuss
“how <IR> can support financial market stability and a more sustainable global economy”
(IIRC newsletter, 2012
11
). It was attended by over 350 people. Mr Yukihito Sato, Chairman of
the Corporate Finance Executive Committee in Japan, said: “We truly share the ultimate
objectives that the Integrated Reporting initiative is pursuing and the Government has to play a
key role. Japan needs to reapply the principles of long-termism that I remember from when I
started my business 40 years ago. I hope that Integrated Reporting will be useful in helping
Japanese businesses unlock their corporate value and fostering long-term business
perspectives”.
Table 3 summarizes the main events reflecting the rise of integrated reporting.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
8
http://www.b3.com.br/data/files/C4/20/C1/74/D65765103CC08565790D8AA8/Case-Report-or-Explain-by-
Sonia-Favaretto.pdf and https://us4.campaign-
archive.com/?u=b36f6aeef75cea67e62812844&id=52f2b873ad&e=aa433ddabb#back
9
http://integratedreporting.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Rio-20-Summit-Open-Letter.pdf
10
https://www.globalreporting.org/information/policy/gofpara47/Pages/default.aspx!!
11
http://iirc.newsweaver.co.uk/newsletter/pewlam2u5qm1kozk6fqq5p?a=2&p=29721115&t=18150654

Integrated reporting and the capitals’ diffusion - Gibassier, Adams, and Jérôme - 2019 14
Table 3: The rise of integrated reporting (adapted from Gibassier et al., 2016)
Year
Event
2010
The International Integrated Reporting Committee (IIRC) is established
2010
The French Grenelle II law asks companies to report sustainability information
within the annual report
2010
SEC issues guidance on climate change
2010
The Dutch government issues its 100% sustainable procurement policy
2011
South Africa requires integrated reports from listed companies
2011
IIRC launches white paper and pilot program
2011
The Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) is founded with Eccles
as a Board member
2011
Finland requests companies to report on their sustainability performance
2011
Brazilian Stock Exchange issues “Report or Explain for Sustainability or
Integrated Reports” rule (renewed several times, including in 2014)
2012
80 companies in total are part of the IIRC’s pilot program
2012
The CSRC calls on United Nations Rio+20 participants to agree on significant
changes in corporate reporting
2012
The “Group of Friends of Paragraph 47” recognizes the importance of corporate
sustainability reporting
2012
The Russian <IR> network is formed
2012
The IIRC holds the <IR> Tokyo Forum in conjunction with the TSE and the
JICPA
2013
The <IR> Framework is launched in December
2013
The <IR> pilot finishes with 100 participants taking part within the three years of
running
3.4. 2013 to today: the consolidation of integrated reporting
In 2014, the European Union published its 2014 directive on sustainability reporting, requesting
companies with more than 500 employees to disclose in their management reports information
on policies, risks, and outcomes regarding environmental, social, and employee issues, human
rights, and anticorruption and bribery topics as well as the diversity of their board of directors.
In 2014, the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) in the UK drew the attention on to the fact that
“the <IR> Framework and the guidance on the strategic report encourages similar qualitative
characteristics and content although the strategic report, being part of the regulated annual
report, is mandatory in the UK, whereas the <IR> framework is at present voluntary” (FRC,
2014; Robertson and Samy, 2015). This was an encouragement to the diffusion of integrated
reporting in the UK. In the UK, companies from the public sector were strongly encouraged,
starting from 2016, to report using an integrated report, and to demonstrate how sustainability
had become an essential characteristic of their objectives, operations, and policy making (HM
Treasury, 2016).
In Australia in 2014, the G100, the main CFO forum in Australia, published a paper offering
broad support for <IR>
12
. The current recommendation 7.4 of the “Corporate Governance
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
12
https://us4.campaign-archive.com/?u=b36f6aeef75cea67e62812844&id=a15fd5a703&e=aa433ddabb#call

Integrated reporting and the capitals’ diffusion - Gibassier, Adams, and Jérôme - 2019 15
Principles and Recommendations” issued by the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) in 2019
states: “a listed entity should disclose whether it has any material exposure to economic,
environmental and social sustainability risks and, if it does, how it manages or intends to
manage those risks” (ASX, 2019, p. 30), and refers to integrated reporting several times in the
document, as a possible avenue for reporting (notably on risk management).
The Autorité des Marchés Financiers (AMF) in France published in its 2016 annual report a
notice stating it was favourably disposed to the annual report being an integrated report, as long
as the integrated report conserved an objective of conciseness. This would allow, according to
them, to benefit from a summary of the strategy and key performance indicators of the
company.
In February 2017, the Securities Exchange Board of India (SEBI) suggested that the top 500
listed companies adopt integrated reporting “on a voluntary basis from FY 2017-18” with the
“objective of improving disclosure standards.”
Table 4 lists the main events demonstrating the consolidation of integrated reporting.
Table 4: The consolidation of integrated reporting (adapted from Gibassier et al., 2016)
Year
Event
2014
The Corporate Reporting Dialogue initiative is launched
2014
In the UK, the strategic report paves the way for the diffusion of integrated
reporting
2014
Eccles and Krzus: “The Integrated Reporting Movement: Meaning, Momentum,
Motives, and Materiality”, Wiley, NY
2014
G100 in Australia issues report which supports <IR>
2016
In the UK, companies from the public sector are strongly encouraged, starting
from 2016, to report using an integrated report
2016
The AMF in France states it is favourable that the annual report becomes an
integrated report
2017
The Securities Exchange Board of India (SEBI) suggests that the top 500 listed
companies adopt integrated reporting “on a voluntary basis from FY 2017-18”
4. Research design
4.1. Sample selection and reports available
We used different sources to find worldwide companies disclosing an integrated report (the
report does not have to be labelled “integrated report” to be considered as an integrated report),
with the aim at building the most exhaustive database of integrated reports as of 2017. Table 5
summarizes the six sources we used.
To start with, we used the GRI database
13
as of November 2017 (this database contains all
voluntary disclosed reports since 1999). This database includes, from 2010 to 2017, the
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
13
http://database.globalreporting.org/. The database was bought from the GRI in November 2017 but is also
available online, without the notion of “integrated report” available.

Integrated reporting and the capitals’ diffusion - Gibassier, Adams, and Jérôme - 2019 16
possibility for companies that load their reports to tick the “integrated report” box. We selected
companies that have mentioned “yes” regarding integrated report at least twice from 2010 to
2015, or once in 2016 or 2017. This allows to keep those who self-select as “integrated report”
at least twice (confirming their status), and it eliminates companies that might have ticked
“integrated report” by error once in the past (for example ticked integrated report in 2011 and
then never after). This was the most comprehensive database that exists to date.
The second database used was the one compiled by the Corporate Register
14
. They have
classified reports as “integrated reports” according to two levels (level 1: The IIRC and/or the
<IR> Framework are referenced in the report / level 2: The IIRC and/or the <IR> Framework
are referenced in the report and at least two of the capitals as defined in the Framework are
reported against).
The third database used is the one built by the IIRC itself, which contains, according to them,
examples of the best integrated reports. We downloaded all their reports.
Those three databases were the most comprehensive databases to start with. We completed this
work with three more sources:
• The list of the JSE listed companies
15
. Indeed, they have the obligation through
their South African specific rules (King reports) to report based on an integrated
reporting format since 2011.
• The list of Japanese companies that, according to KPMG (2017), report using
the integrated reporting format. Japanese companies do not have the obligation
but are highly encouraged by their government to report using the integrated
reporting format.
• Finally, we found one last database, “online-report”, which contained a list of
integrated reports which we added to the compilation.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
14
http://www.corporateregister.com/!
15
https://www.african-markets.com/en/stock-markets/jse/listed-companies

Integrated reporting and the capitals’ diffusion - Gibassier, Adams, and Jérôme - 2019 17
Table 5: The six global sources used to identify the integrated reports
Sources
Procedure
GRI database
In total, there are 1,812 companies from the list. Without the
integrated reports that have only been ticked once from 2010 to
2015, there are 1,206 reports (1,812 - 606 = 1,206)
Corporate Register
It provides a list of 1,883 reports in total. 1,059 at level 1 and 824
at level 2. After taking out companies for which reports are
integrated on a multiple-year basis, we were left with a final list of
760 companies in total
The IIRC examples
database16
It contains 201 reports
African Markets list of
JSE companies
There are 397 companies names
KPMG reports
277 company names are listed for 2016
Online report
There are 189 reports labelled as integrated reports. After taking
out companies for which reports are integrated on a multiple-year
basis, we are left with a final list of 129 companies
We obtained a list of 2,016 different firms in total combining all sources
17
. From this initial list,
we downloaded all reports with data from 2016 or 2016/2017 (for example with ending fiscal
year dates as of March 2017). To find the reports, we had to type the name of the company and
keywords that ranged from “integrated report” to “annual report” or “CSR report”.
We came across companies for which the report was only available in a language which is not
English or French (the research team does not have the capacity to analyse reports in Spanish
for example). Some reports were also not found or downloadable. We also eliminated reports
that were clearly not integrated reports. To define the minimum requirement for a report to be
included in our list, we decided to set the threshold with the definition of Todd (2005) and Frías-
Aceituno et al. (2013a): if all of the statements such as financial statements, sustainability
report, and corporate governance statements are all integrated into a single document, then it is
an integrated report. While this definition is broad, it allows to capture different levels of
integrated reporting, as the “integrated report” innovation and its adoption are still relatively
new. The research team examined on a case by case basis whether the annual report could be
considered an integrated report. The initial list of 2,016 reports was reduced to 1,367 (see Table
6). Of these 1,367 observations, 569 (42%) companies were cross-referenced in at least two
sources.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
16
This is different from the 549 reports in the IIRC internal database, which is not public as far as we are aware
of. We used their examples’ database as our source.
17
We mention only 2,016 companies as we first had to remove a significant number of duplicates (the same
company mentioned several times in different databases). The identification of duplicates was done by hand
because the name of the same company may slightly vary from one data source to another one.!

Integrated reporting and the capitals’ diffusion - Gibassier, Adams, and Jérôme - 2019 18
Table 6: Description of the sample selection procedure
Steps
Number of
observations
%18 of the
initial sample
Initial list of reports
2,016
100%
- Reports in other languages than English or French
-152
-8%
- Reports not found/downloadable
-385
-19%
- Reports that are not an integrated report19
-110
-5%
- Other cases
-2
0%
Total number of reports removed
-649
-32%
Total number of reports available
1,367
68%
4.2. Coding of the reports
Twenty items were coded, including two recent CSR frameworks (SDGs and Task Force on
Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TFCD)), as well as the name of the report. The other
seventeen elements were coded from the <IR> Framework: content elements, fundamental
concepts (capitals), and two guiding principles (stakeholder relationships and materiality).
Table 7 provides a summary of the twenty items coded. The general reporting guidance was
not coded as it is related to other elements already coded (materiality, capitals, etc.). For each
item, we indicated its presence (1) or its absence (0).
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
18
All percentages are rounded to the nearest integer throughout the reporting of the results in this document.
19
These were for example annual reports with only financial data and no mention of sustainability, or sustainability
reports with no mention of economic data. They were taken out while the coders worked on the coding of the 20
items, therefore verified one by one.

Integrated reporting and the capitals’ diffusion - Gibassier, Adams, and Jérôme - 2019 19
Table 7: List of the 20 items coded in each report
Number of the item
Item coded
Item 1
Name of the report
Item 2
IIRC mention
Item 3
Organizational overview and external environment
Item 4
Business model
Item 5
Governance
Item 6
Risks and opportunities
Item 7
Strategy and resource allocation
Item 8
Performance
Item 9
Outlook
Item 10
Basis of preparation and presentation
Item 11
Financial capital
Item 12
Manufactured capital
Item 13
Social and relationship capital
Item 14
Human capital
Item 15
Natural capital
Item 16
Intellectual capital
Item 17
Materiality matrix
Item 18
Stakeholders
Item 19
SDGs
Item 20
TCFD
4.3. Other variables
We collected other variables from Orbis which is a global database operated by Bureau van
Dijk. For each company included in our own database, we searched in the Orbis database and
match companies with the corresponding Orbis entity. In case of uncertainty as to which firm
to select, we used the contact details that we found in the report or the exact name of the
reporting entity we found in the auditors’ report for example. This procedure resulted in a total
of 1,349 (99%) firms identified in the Orbis database out of a total of 1,367.
5. Diffusion of integrated reporting
We describe the diffusion of integrated reporting according to five dimensions: country, sector,
size, listed status, and other major reporting schemes. However, it is important to note that
companies, even if they are found in the Orbis database (see above), do not necessarily have all
information available for the analysis, as some data are not filled in (for example, the number
of employees might not be filled in for a particular given company). Also, for each of the
dimensions, we conducted our analysis on the largest possible sample we have. The sample size
may be less than 1,349 and varies from one dimension to another one, depending on how much
data Orbis was allowing us to collect on the initial 1,367 companies.

Integrated reporting and the capitals’ diffusion - Gibassier, Adams, and Jérôme - 2019 20
5.1. Geography
We first take a geographical view of the adoption of integrated reporting by organizations. The
country we consider is the country of incorporation of the firm. The total number of
observations in this section is equal to 1,367 as we completed by hand all the missing data.
Table 8 shows how many reports were found in each country. In Panel A, we present countries
accounting for more than 1% of the final sample. Panel B lists countries accounting for less
than 1% of the final sample by main geographic area. Recent research provides evidence of
shifts towards integrated reporting in countries such as the UK, the Netherlands, Spain,
Australia, Singapore, Japan, and the USA (de Villiers et al., 2014). Through this study, we
further explore the geographical dispersion of integrated reporting adoption.
Table 8: Distribution of reports by country
Panel A20
Country
Number of reports
Percentage of the sample
South Africa
347
25
Japan
248
18
The United Kingdom
76
6
The Netherlands
67
5
Spain
53
4
Switzerland
36
3
Australia
35
3
Finland
35
3
Brazil
32
2
Sweden
27
2
Sri Lanka
25
2
The United States
25
2
Italy
24
2
France
23
2
Germany
21
2
South Korea
19
1
Canada
18
1
Russia
18
1
Norway
17
1
Mexico
15
1
New Zealand
14
1
Total
1,175
8621
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
20
Countries are ranked by number of reports and then by alphabetical order.!
21
Due to rounding, the total percentage does not correspond to the sum of each row.

Integrated reporting and the capitals’ diffusion - Gibassier, Adams, and Jérôme - 2019 21
Panel B22
Europe
Asia
Africa
Middle East
Latin America
Others
Country
Nbr of
reports
Country
Nbr of
reports
Country
Nbr of
reports
Country
Nbr of
reports
Country
Nbr of
reports
Country
Nbr of
reports
Belgium
13
Singapore
12
Mauritius
12
Qatar
4
Columbia
7
Bermuda
2
Austria
12
China
9
Kenya
4
Jordan
1
Chile
5
Cayman
Islands
1
Poland
8
India
7
Namibia
4
Lebanon
1
Peru
3
Portugal
8
Malaysia
6
Zimbabwe
4
Saudi Arabia
1
Argentina
1
Slovenia
4
Thailand
6
Botswana
2
United Arab
Emirates
1
Turkey
4
Philippines
5
Nigeria
2
Croatia
3
Taiwan
4
Swaziland
1
Denmark
3
Pakistan
3
Uganda
1
Estonia
3
Vietnam
3
Greece
3
Bangladesh
1
Luxembourg
3
Indonesia
1
Hungary
2
Mongolia
1
Latvia
2
Malta
2
Ukraine
2
Bulgaria
1
Czech Republic
1
Ireland
1
Liechtenstein
1
Romania
1
Total =
77
Total =
58
Total =
30
Total =
8
Total =
16
Total =
3
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
22
Countries are ranked by number of reports and then by alphabetical order.

Integrated reporting and the capitals’ diffusion - Gibassier, Adams, and Jérôme - 2019! 22!
As Panel A shows, 21 countries account for more than 85% of the final sample. Diffusion thus
remains relatively concentrated. In particular, the first two countries are South Africa followed
by Japan. Taken together, they account for 43% of the final sample. These two countries are
also the ones for which Eccles et al. (2019) find the largest number of integrated reports
prepared in 2018, according to the IIRC database. We then find many European countries but
also countries that we do not necessarily expect to find. For example, 25 of the reports included
in our database are considered as from Sri Lanka. This may be due to the fact that the CA Sri
Lanka hosted the international conference on Integrated Reporting <IR> in 2012. In this case,
an international event may be at the origin of a reporting dynamic. Some countries, because of
their economic weight, can be seen as laggards. In Canada and Germany, for example, there
are only about 20 companies with integrated reporting, which may seem low. Eccles et al.
(2019, p. 6) state that “as of October 2018, only 28 United States’ companies prepared an
integrated report […]”. We find a very close figure in 2016 with only 25 reports, confirmed
also by the US IR Community website’s number of US integrated reports to date (29 in 2019
23
).
In Panel B, we show which countries have only a few companies publishing integrated reports.
Many countries in Asia, Latin America, and Africa are emerging as integrated reporters (Dumay
et al., 2016). For example, we found 7 integrated reports from Columbia, and India, Malaysia,
Thailand, Philippines, and Taiwan total 28 reports. Africa (outside of South Africa) has 30
integrated reports published already. Eccles et al. (2019, p. 6) note that “[…] the People’s
Republic of China is not referenced in the IIRC’s map”. We find 9 reports regarding China, 8
of which are companies incorporated in Hong Kong.
5.2. Industry
Second, we observed the various sectors of activity that engage in integrated reporting. This
analysis is conducted on 1,284 observations out of 1,367 (94%) due to the fact that some
companies are not present in Orbis (see paragraph 4.3. above) and that some companies
identified in Orbis do not have data on their sector of activity. In Table 9, we distinguish 18
different sectors, one of which is an “other services” general category linked to tertiary
activities.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
23
!https://iruscommunity.org/directory-united-states-integrated-reports!

Integrated reporting and the capitals’ diffusion - Gibassier, Adams, and Jérôme - 2019! 23!
Table 9: Distribution of reports by industry
Sector
Number of
reports
Percentage
Other services
346
27
Machinery, equipment, furniture, recycling
141
11
Banks and insurance companies
116
9
Chemicals, rubber, plastics, non-metallic products
111
9
Wholesale and retail trade
92
7
Metals and metal products
74
6
Gas, water, electricity
63
5
Primary sector
56
4
Construction
52
4
Transport
52
4
Food, beverages, tobacco
49
4
Post and telecommunications
45
3
Wood, cork, paper
23
2
Publishing, printing
21
2
Hotels and restaurants
16
1
Education, health
11
1
Textiles, wearing apparel, leather
10
1
Public administration and defense
6
0
Total
1,284
100
The literature has mainly emphasized the leadership of the finance industry in integrated
reporting, but there is not recent update on industry adoption. We demonstrate that industries
linked to “intangibles” (such as intellectual or social and relationship capitals) report most
(tertiary activities, banks and insurance sectors, wholesale and retail). However, the
chemicals/rubber/plastics industry also counts in the largest group of reporters, illustrated by
leaders who developed integrated reports before the IIRC published its Framework (Akzo
Nobel for example).
5.3. Size
Several empirical studies have shown that size plays a significant role on the likelihood of
producing an integrated report (Frías-Aceituno et al., 2013a; 2013b; 2014; Sierra-García et al.,
2015). As large companies have more means, are more visible, etc., we can expect them to be
more active in the integrated reporting area. In order to have an idea of the profile of the
companies that have engaged with integrated reporting, we measure size in this study using the
number of employees. This variable is less well informed in the Orbis database and the sample
is therefore equal to 818 observations out of a total of 1,367 observations (60%) in this section.
Considering the number of employees, we create three different groups to classify the firms
included in our database:
- category 1: less than 500 employees (small firms)
- category 2: between 500 and 5,000 employees (medium-sized firms)
- category 3: above 5,000 employees (large firms)

Integrated reporting and the capitals’ diffusion - Gibassier, Adams, and Jérôme - 2019! 24!
Table 10: Distribution of reports by size category
Number of employees
Number of reports
Percentage
Nbr of employees < 500
112
14
500 ≤ Nbr of employees < 5,000
233
28
5,000 ≥ Nbr of employees
473
58
Total
818
100
Contrary to what might be expected at first sight, the number of companies with more than
5,000 employees represents only 58% of the sample, medium-sized enterprises 28%, and small
enterprises 14%. Studies already published focus mainly on large companies. Indeed, Dumay
et al. (2016) found no studies on SMEs based on a literature review of 56 studies dealing with
integrated reporting. However, the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC) published
“Creating value for SMEs through integrated thinking: The benefits of integrated reporting” in
2017.
5.4. Listing status
Since many studies focus on listed companies (Dumay et al., 2016), it is important to know
whether integrated reporting is actually carried out by these companies or whether unlisted
companies are also involved in this approach and we need to broaden our focus. This analysis
is carried out on a sample of 1,325 observations out of a total of 1,367 (97%) because not all
companies are found in Orbis and those found in Orbis do not necessarily have information on
it. Table 11 shows the percentage of firms that are listed and unquoted.
Table 11: Distribution of reports by listing status
Status
Number of reports
Percentage
Not listed or delisted
383
29
Listed
942
71
Total
1,325
100
More than two thirds of our companies are listed, but we can see that non-listed companies
have also adopted integrated reporting. Several countries have pushed, as for example in the
UK, their public sector companies to report using integrated reporting. While the IIRC’s
primary focus in on the investors, it has also vowed to incentivize a larger set of companies to
implement integrated reporting: “[while] the framework is written primarily in the context of
private sector, for-profit companies of any size […] it can also be applied, adapted as necessary,
by public sector and not-for-profit organizations” (IIRC, 2013, p. 4).
5.5. Links with major frameworks
We sought to assess the adoption of integrated reporting by organisations using the GRI to
report on sustainability. In their 2018 “Reporting Matters” report, the WBCSD noted that the
adoption of integrated reporting was joint with the use of the GRI guidelines to a level of 83%.
Moreover, we sought to examine whether preparers of integrated reports are also engaged in
sustainability reporting and reporting on SDGs. Robertson and Samy (2015) state that the
international regulatory arena is complex, and that greater cohesion is sought by the IIRC which
has signed several memorandums of understanding with several accounting and sustainability

Integrated reporting and the capitals’ diffusion - Gibassier, Adams, and Jérôme - 2019 25
bodies including the GRI, IASB (International Accounting Standards Board), SASB, and IFAC
(see also Gibassier (2015)).
To address this, we looked at companies that self-declared with the GRI (we acknowledge that
not all reports within the GRI database explicitly cite the GRI as one of their reporting
frameworks, but voluntary uploading reports to the GRI database is often a strong signal that
GRI indicators are at least partially in use). Then, we also looked at which companies mention
the SDGs in their integrated report. The total number of observations is 1,367 as this piece of
information has been directly collected from the integrated reports.
Table 12: Integrated reporting, use of the GRI guidelines, and adoption of SDGs
Number of reports
Percentage
Joint self-declaration
to GRI and integrated
reporting
Not included in the GRI database
604
44
Included in the GRI database
763
56
Total
1,367
100
Joint mention of SDGs
and integrated
reporting
No mention of SDGs
973
71
Mention of SDGs
394
29
Total
1,367
100
According to Table 12, about 56% of the companies included in our initial sample come from
the GRI database. We found a lower level of joint use of the GRI guidelines and the production
of an integrated report compared to the WBCSD findings (2018). However, it is possible that
companies that use the GRI guidelines do not declare themselves to the GRI, which de facto
leads to a lower percentage. Companies may cite the GRI in their “about the report” page or
through a GRI indicators table at the end of their report, but might not automatically upload to
the database. This can also be partially explained by the low presence of Japanese integrated
reports in the GRI database (17% only) and their large presence in our database (248 reports).
Out of the reports we analysed, only 394 (about 29%) refer to the SDGs. This percentage may
seem relatively low but it nevertheless reflects a relative tendency of companies to refer to
numerous initiatives. The SDG uptake has gradually grown since 2016, as the SDGs were a
relatively new framework to adopt at the time we analysed the reports.
6. Depth of adoption
This part of the report requires a detailed analysis of the content of the reports and therefore a
careful individual reading of them.
6.1. Definition of depth of adoption of integrated reporting
The Corporate Register database has been, to our knowledge, the first to define a model of
“depth” of adoption of the IIRC <IR> Framework. They define it in two steps
24
:
Level 1: The IIRC and/or the <IR> Framework are referenced in the report.
Level 2: The IIRC and/or the <IR> Framework are referenced in the report and at least two of
the capitals as defined in the Framework are reported against.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
24
http://www.corporateregister.com/frameworks/iirc/

Integrated reporting and the capitals’ diffusion - Gibassier, Adams, and Jérôme - 2019 26
We further define the depth of adoption of integrated reporting in two steps.
The first step will create two groups of adopters: those that do mention the IIRC <IR>
Framework as the guiding framework for writing the report, and those that do not.
We define further four levels of adoption depth for each group. The first level requires to have
reported a business model that explains the value creation process, as this is at the centre of the
definition of integrated reporting. The second level (cumulative with the first one) asks for
companies to also have reported on their materiality, to demonstrate that the report is concise,
and focuses on the most material aspects. Further, we add two additional levels that focus on
the use of capitals (level three asks for at least three capitals. As economic capital is often given
as reported, we would like to emphasize that in depth adoption requires further capitals to be
reported as well). Last, the ultimate level, in which we consider integrated reporting to have
been adopted in depth, will require all the above, plus to have reported five more categories
coded through the research. Table 13 summarizes the combination of the two steps and how it
leads to different categories reflecting the integrated reporting adoption depth.
Table 13: Two steps to determine the adoption depth of integrated reporting
IIRC Framework
Group 1
No mention of the IIRC
Framework
Group 2
Mention of the IIRC
Framework
Depth of
integrated
reporting
adoption
Level 0
No reporting of the business
model
No reporting of the business
model
Level 1
Reporting of the business
model
Reporting of the business
model
Level 2
Reporting on materiality
Reporting on materiality
Level 3
Reporting on at least three
capitals
Reporting on at least three
capitals
Level 4
Reporting on at least 5 more
items
Reporting on at least 5 more
items
From the 1,367 reports we have, we counted the number of cases belonging to each category in
Table 14.

Integrated reporting and the capitals’ diffusion - Gibassier, Adams, and Jérôme - 2019 27
Table 14: Adoption depth of integrated reporting
IIRC Framework
Group 1
No mention of the IIRC
Framework
834 observations
Group 2
Mention of the IIRC Framework
533 observations
Nbr of
observations
Percentage
Nbr of
observations
Percentage
Depth of
IR
adoption
Level 0
462
34
83
6
Level 1
210
15
135
10
Level 2
2
0
8
1
Level 3
2
0
1
0
Level 4
158
12
306
22
Level 0: no mention of the business model. Level 1: mention of the business model. Level 2: mention of the
business model and materiality. Level 3: mention of the business model, materiality, and at least three capitals.
Level 4: mention of the business model, materiality, at least three capitals, and five more categories (see Table 7).
The majority (61%) of companies do not mention the IIRC <IR> Framework explicitly. In this
case, the depth of integration is relatively low (levels 0 and 1) even if this does not prevent 12%
of companies from having a high depth of adoption. When they mention the IIRC <IR>
Framework (39% of the sample), the level of adoption is relatively high and many elements of
the Framework are present. Finally, it should be noted that intermediate levels of adoption depth
are extremely low.
We therefore seem to have a relatively contrasted situation with, on the one hand, companies
that do not explicitly mention the IIRC <IR> Framework and, on the other hand, those that
follow the guidelines very well. Within integrated reports which do not mention the framework,
building a business model (“we create value” type of visual) seem to be the most adopted part
of the Framework, signalling what could become a more in depth adoption for those reporters.
Indeed, the “business model” octopus allows to also consider the capitals, which could in a later
report, be reported on more thoroughly.
6.2. Naming of the report
The naming of new concepts and practices are critical for innovations, so that they might
become a part of the cognitive map of the field (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006). Naming also
allows for further theorizing of an emergent concept such as integrated reporting (Lawrence
and Suddaby, 2006).
Therefore, as per the GRI (2013) on reports from 2010 to 2012, we analysed the title of reports,
as a possible indicator of depth of adoption of integrated reporting. In 2012, the GRI research
demonstrated that the number of self-declared integrated reports in their database that were
explicitly titled ‘Integrated report’ had grown from (3%) in 2010 to 16% in 2012 (and that the
majority – from 50-60% – were still called ‘Annual report’ or ‘Sustainability report’). On the
specific example of South Africa, the analysis of the GRI (2013) demonstrates the shift from
titling reports ‘annual report’ to ‘integrated report’: “South African self-declared integrated
reports were entitled ‘Annual reports’ (82%) in 2010, the use of that title has rapidly fallen to

Integrated reporting and the capitals’ diffusion - Gibassier, Adams, and Jérôme - 2019 28
33% in 2011 and only 23% in 2012, as reports entitled ‘Integrated report’ have taken hold –
from just 11% in 2010, to 59% in 2011 and 64% in 2012 to date” (GRI, 2013, p. 24).
Out of the 1,367 reports we reviewed, we initially listed 98 different names. Also, to make the
analysis easier, we categorized the 98 names according to four different categories which
gradually emerged when reading the report titles:
1. Annual reports
In this category, we include all reports that are also called activity reports and all titles
mentioning the financial nature of the data (‘financial report’, ‘activity report’, ‘annual
review’, ‘global report’, etc.).
2. Corporate responsibility or sustainability reports
We include all reports mentioning notions related to accountability, responsibility, ethics,
social, etc. In cases where two concepts are specified simultaneously (‘CSR and financial
report’ for example), then we retain a classification in the second category and favor here
the sustainability feature.
3. Integrated reports
All names in this category have the adjective ‘integrated’. When two notions are present
(‘integrated activities and sustainability report’ for instance), integrated was preferred and
retained.
4. Others
Examples of names in the “others” category include: ‘co-creation management report’,
‘transparency report’, ‘strategic report’, ‘management report’, etc.
In Table 15, we report the total number of observations we have in each of the four categories.
Table 15: Names used to title the reports
Category number
Category name
Number of reports
Percentage
1
Annual reports
678
50
2
Corporate responsibility or
sustainability reports
121
9
3
Integrated reports
551
40
4
Others
17
1
Total
1,367
100
The name ‘annual report’ is found 678 times, which represents 50% of the total sample, but the
term ‘integrated report/integrated annual report’ is also very present with 551 occurrences (40%
of the sample). We note an important breakthrough of the integrated notion at the expense of
the CSR/Sustainability idea which appears as marginal (only 9% of our sample, driven for
example by Brazil, which published integrated reports under the banner of sustainability
reports).

Integrated reporting and the capitals’ diffusion - Gibassier, Adams, and Jérôme - 2019 29
One of the factors that may influence the naming of reports is the adoption of the IIRC <IR>
Framework. Also, in Table 16 below, we examine whether the proportion of companies using
category name 3 is related to the adoption of the IIRC <IR> Framework.
Table 16: Titling of the reports depending on the IIRC <IR> Framework mention
IIRC Framework
Total
Group 1
No mention of the
IIRC Framework
834 observations
Group 2
Mention of the
IIRC Framework
533 observations
Category
number
Category name
1
Annual reports
504
174
678
2
Corporate responsibility
or sustainability reports
90
31
121
3
Integrated reports
229
322
551
4
Others
11
6
17
Total
834
533
1,367
Results show that the use of the notion of ‘integration’ in the report title is indeed strongly
associated with the mention of IIRC <IR> Framework.
7. Disclosure of capitals
Coulson et al. (2015) consider that the <IR> Framework (IIRC, 2013) is “[…] a shift from a
financial capital market system to an inclusive capital market system through recognition of
multiple capitals and integrated reporting and thinking”. The capitals are considered as a
fundamental concept of the <IR> Framework (IIRC, 2013).
Wild and van Staden (2013) found that in general four of the six capitals were reported in the
IIRC examples database. We used a binary code to identify each of the six capitals. From our
sample of 1,367 reports, the average number of reported capitals by firm is relatively high and
is equal to 4.52. This value is slightly higher than that found by Wild and van Staden (2013)
and demonstrates an increased use of the capitals. In Table 17, we present the number of
different capitals reported by each of the companies.

Integrated reporting and the capitals’ diffusion - Gibassier, Adams, and Jérôme - 2019 30
Table 17: Number of firms reporting 0 to 6 capitals
Number of firms
Percentage
0 capital
125
0
1 capital
31
3
2 capitals
42
3
3 capitals
127
8
4 capitals
471
35
5 capitals
365
27
6 capitals
321
23
Total
1,367
10026
Six types of capitals can be mentioned: financial, human, intellectual, manufactured, natural,
and social and relationship (see the Appendix). In Table 18, we show which capitals are most
often reported.
Table 18: Type of capitals reported by firms
Capital
Number of firms reporting this capital
Percentage
Financial capital
1,357
99
Human capital
1,287
94
Natural capital
1,247
91
Social capital
1,212
89
Intellectual capital
645
47
Manufactured capital
434
32
Setia et al. (2015) demonstrate that the introduction of integrated reporting in South Africa
resulted in an increase in the extent of disclosure of human, social and relational, natural, and
intellectual capital information of the listed companies. They went further to show that “the
increment in the disclosure of social and relational capital is statistically significantly greater
than the increment in the disclosure of other capitals” (Setia et al., 2015, p. 397). We note that,
after the financial capital, the capitals most mentioned are human capital and natural capital.
They represent elements that were historically present within sustainability reports (“people”
section and “environment” section). Intellectual capital (only 47%) and manufactured capital
(only 32%) are significantly less used.
8. Conclusion
Our research confirms earlier findings:
• on the geographical dispersion of integrated report diffusion, and the high concentration in
South Africa and Japan;
• on integrated reporting being adopted by large organizations in majority; and
• on the high adoption of the capitals (more than 4 capitals on average per report).
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
25
We have one short integrated report (15 pages long), which does not contain a capitals’ report
26
Due to rounding, the total percentage does not correspond to the sum of each row.

Integrated reporting and the capitals’ diffusion - Gibassier, Adams, and Jérôme - 2019 31
Our research makes the following new contributions to our understanding of integrated
reporting:
• Our research outlines several new countries that have a large number of integrated reports
and have not been investigated in depth: Sri Lanka and Mexico for example.
• We demonstrate the high proportion of industries linked to “intangibles” that publish
integrated reports.
• Our research contrasts the impression given by earlier research that only large companies
publish integrated reports, as 42% of companies have less than 5,000 employees.
• Despite previous acknowledgement of the large joint use between the GRI and integrated
reporting (83% according to the WBCSD (2018)), we find that only a little over 50%
acknowledge both approaches together.
• Within the reports that acknowledge the use of the IIRC as their Framework, the depth of
adoption is high.
• Our research also outlines that a large number of companies have now adopted the title
“integrated report”, which demonstrates a deepening of adoption.
• Within the three intangible capitals, intellectual capital
27
is the least reported, while human
and social capitals are highly embedded within integrated reports.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
27
However, we acknowledge that tangible elements are part of the definition of intellectual capital (see the
Appendix for a definition of the six capitals (IIRC, 2013)).

Integrated reporting and the capitals’ diffusion - Gibassier, Adams, and Jérôme - 2019 32
Glossary
A4S: Accounting for Sustainability Project
AMF: Autorité des Marchés Financiers
ASSC: Accounting Standards Steering Committee
ASX: Australian Securities Exchange
CA Sri Lanka: the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Sri Lanka
CERES: Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies
CSR: Corporate Social Responsibility
CSRC: Corporate Sustainability Reporting Coalition
FRC: The Financial Reporting Council
GRI: Global Reporting Initiative
IASB: International Accounting Standards Board
ICAS: The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland
IFAC: International Federation of Accountants
IIRC: International Integrated Reporting Council
IR: Integrated Report(ing)
JICPA: the Japanese Institute of Certified Public Accountants
JSE: Johannesburg Stock Exchange
SDGs: Sustainable Development Goals
SEC: Securities and Exchange Commission
TFCD: Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures
TSE: Tokyo Stock Exchange
SAICA: The South African Institute of Chartered Accountants
SASB: Sustainability Accounting Standards Board
SEBI: Securities Exchange Board of India
UK: United Kingdom
US: United States
WBCSD: World Business Council for Sustainable Development

Integrated reporting and the capitals’ diffusion - Gibassier, Adams, and Jérôme - 2019! 33!
Appendix: Definition of the six capitals
!
We report the definitions of the six capitals (IIRC, 2013, p. 11-12).
!
Financial capital
The pool of funds that is:
- available to an organization for use in the production of goods or the provision of services
- obtained through financing, such as debt, equity or grants, or generated through operations or
investments
Manufactured capital
Manufactured physical objects (as distinct from natural physical objects) that are available to
an organization for use in the production of goods or the provision of services, including:
- buildings
- equipment
- infrastructure (such as roads, ports, bridges, and waste and water treatment plants)
Intellectual capital
Organizational knowledge-based intangibles, including:
- intellectual property, such as patents, copyrights, software, rights and licences
- “organizational capital” such as tacit knowledge, systems, procedures and protocols
Human capital
People’s competencies, capabilities and experience, and their motivations to innovate,
including their:
- alignment with and support for an organization’s governance framework, risk management
approach, and ethical values
- ability to understand, develop and implement an organization’s strategy
- loyalties and motivations for improving processes, goods and services, including their ability
to lead, manage and collaborate
Social and relationship capital
The institutions and the relationships within and between communities, groups of stakeholders
and other networks, and the ability to share information to enhance individual and collective
well-being. Social and relationship capital includes:
- shared norms, and common values and behaviours
- key stakeholder relationships, and the trust and willingness to engage that an organization has
developed and strives to build and protect with external stakeholders
- intangibles associated with the brand and reputation that an organization has developed an
organization’s social licence to operate
Natural capital
All renewable and non-renewable environmental resources and processes that provide goods or
services that support the past, current or future prosperity of an organization. It includes:
- air, water, land, minerals and forests
- biodiversity and eco-system health

Integrated reporting and the capitals’ diffusion - Gibassier, Adams, and Jérôme - 2019! 34!
Table of contents
1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 3!
2. Review of current knowledge on integrated reporting and capitals’ diffusion .............. 5!
2.1. An adoption that dates back prior to 2013 ...................................................................... 5!
2.2. A rapid adoption of integrated reporting ........................................................................ 6!
2.3. The determinants of the adoption of integrated reporting .............................................. 6!
2.3.1. The institutional national environment .................................................................... 6!
The country’s economic system ..................................................................................... 6!
The country’s financial system ....................................................................................... 7!
The country’s educational and labour system ............................................................... 7!
The country’s cultural system ........................................................................................ 7!
The country’s legal system ............................................................................................. 7!
2.3.2. The firm specific drivers .......................................................................................... 8!
Industry .......................................................................................................................... 8!
Company image ............................................................................................................. 8!
Status .............................................................................................................................. 8!
Size ................................................................................................................................. 8!
Governance and ownership ........................................................................................... 8!
3. Review of the institutional context leading to the adoption of integrated reporting ..... 9!
3.1. 1975 to 2002: the creation of the need of integrated reporting ....................................... 9!
3.2. 2002 to 2010: the early adopters ................................................................................... 10!
3.3. 2010 to 2013: the rise of integrated reporting ............................................................... 11!
3.3.1. The South African lead .......................................................................................... 11!
3.3.2. The IIRC and the <IR> Framework ....................................................................... 11!
3.3.3. Other institutional context favourable to the development of integrated reporting 12!
3.4. 2013 to today: the consolidation of integrated reporting .............................................. 14!
4. Research design .................................................................................................................. 15!
4.1. Sample selection and reports available ......................................................................... 15!
4.2. Coding of the reports .................................................................................................... 18!
4.3. Other variables .............................................................................................................. 19!
5. Diffusion of integrated reporting ...................................................................................... 19!
5.1. Geography ..................................................................................................................... 20!
5.2. Industry ......................................................................................................................... 22!
5.3. Size ................................................................................................................................ 23!
5.4. Listing status ................................................................................................................. 24!
5.5. Links with major frameworks ....................................................................................... 24!
6. Depth of adoption ............................................................................................................... 25!
6.1. Definition of depth of adoption of integrated reporting ................................................ 25!

Integrated reporting and the capitals’ diffusion - Gibassier, Adams, and Jérôme - 2019 35
6.2. Naming of the report ..................................................................................................... 27!
7. Disclosure of capitals ......................................................................................................... 29!
8. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 30!
Glossary .................................................................................................................................. 32!
Appendix: Definition of the six capitals ............................................................................... 33!
Table of contents .................................................................................................................... 34!
List of Tables .......................................................................................................................... 36!
References ............................................................................................................................... 37!

Integrated reporting and the capitals’ diffusion - Gibassier, Adams, and Jérôme - 2019! 36!
List of Tables
Table 1: The premises of integrated reporting (adapted from Gibassier et al., 2016) ........ 10!
Table 2: Early adopters and the institutional environment (adapted from Gibassier et al.,
2016) ........................................................................................................................................ 11!
Table 3: The rise of integrated reporting (adapted from Gibassier et al., 2016) ................. 14!
Table 4: The consolidation of integrated reporting (adapted from Gibassier et al., 2016) 15!
Table 5: The six global sources used to identify the integrated reports ........................... 17!
Table 6: Description of the sample selection procedure ..................................................... 18!
Table 7: List of the 20 items coded in each report .............................................................. 19!
Table 8: Distribution of reports by country ........................................................................ 20!
Table 9: Distribution of reports by industry ....................................................................... 23!
Table 10: Distribution of reports by size category .............................................................. 24!
Table 11: Distribution of reports by listing status .............................................................. 24!
Table 12: Integrated reporting, use of the GRI guidelines, and adoption of SDGs ......... 25!
Table 13: Two steps to determine the adoption depth of integrated reporting ............... 26!
Table 14: Adoption depth of integrated reporting .............................................................. 27!
Table 15: Names used to title the reports ............................................................................ 28!
Table 16: Titling of the reports depending on the IIRC <IR> Framework mention ...... 29!
Table 17: Number of firms reporting 0 to 6 capitals .......................................................... 30!
Table 18: Type of capitals reported by firms ...................................................................... 30!

Integrated reporting and the capitals’ diffusion - Gibassier, Adams, and Jérôme - 2019! 37!
References
ASSC (1975). “The Corporate Report”. London, UK: ASSC.
ASX (2019). “Corporate Governance Principles and Recommendations”. Third edition.
Available at:
https://www.asx.com.au/documents/asx-compliance/cgc-principles-and-
recommendations-3rd-edn.pdf
Adams, C. A. (2015). “The International Integrated Reporting Council: A call to action”.
Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 27: 23-28.
Adams, C. A. (2017). “Conceptualising the contemporary corporate value creation process”.
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 30(4): 906-931.
Adams, C. A., and Frost, G. R. (2008). “Integrating sustainability reporting into management
practices”. Accounting Forum, 32(4): 288-302.
Adams, C. A., Potter, B., Singh, P. J., and York, J. (2016). “Exploring the implications of
integrated reporting for social investment (disclosures)”. The British Accounting Review,
48(3): 283-296.
Barth, M. E., Cahan, S. F., Chen, L., and Venter, E. R. (2017). “The economic consequences
associated with integrated report quality: Capital market and real effects”. Accounting,
Organizations and Society, 62: 43-64.
Bernardi, C., and Stark, A. W. (2018). “Environmental, social and governance disclosure,
integrated reporting, and the accuracy of analyst forecasts”. The British Accounting
Review, 50(1): 16-31.
Campbell, J. L. (2004). “Institutional change and globalization”. Princeton University Press,
Princeton, NJ.
Cheng, M., Green, W., Conradie, P., Konishi, N., and Romi, A. (2014). “The international
integrated reporting framework: key issues and future research opportunities”. Journal of
International Financial Management & Accounting, 25(1): 90-119.
Coulson, A., Adams, C., Nugent, M., and Haynes, K. (2015). “Exploring metaphors of capitals
and the framing of multiple capitals: challenges and opportunities for IR”. Sustainability
Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 6: 290-314.
Deloitte (2012). “Integrated reporting: the new big picture”, in Deloitte Review, Issue 10.
Available at:
https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/insights/us/articles/integrated-reporting-the-
new-big-
picture/US_deloittereview_Integrated_Reporting_The_New_Big_Picture_Jan12.pdf
(accessed 15th April, 2018).
de Villiers, C., Rinaldi, L., and Unerman, J. (2014). “Integrated reporting: insights, gaps and an
agenda for future research”. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 27(7):
1042-1067.

Integrated reporting and the capitals’ diffusion - Gibassier, Adams, and Jérôme - 2019 38
Dumay, J., Bernardi, C., Guthrie, J., and Demartini, P. (2016). “Integrated reporting: A
structured literature review”. Accounting Forum, 40(3): 166-185.
Elkington, J. (1997). “Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business”.
Capstone Publishing: Oxford.
Eccles, R. G., and Krzus, M. P. (2010). “One Report: Integrated Reporting for a Sustainable
Strategy”. Wiley: New York.
Eccles, R. G., and Serafeim, G. (2011). “Accelerating the adoption of integrated reporting”.
Chap. 2.2 in CSR Index, edited by de Leo, F. and Vollbracht, M., 70-92. InnoVatio
Publishing Ltd.
Eccles, R. G., and Krzus, M. P. (2014). “The Integrated Reporting Movement: Meaning,
Momentum, Motives, and Materiality”. Wiley: NY.
Eccles, R. G., Krzus, M. P., and Solano, C. (2019). “A comparative analysis of integrated
reporting in ten Countries”, Paper submitted for publication as a chapter in “The
Routledge Handbook of Financial Geography”, edited by Knox-Hayes, J. and Wojcik, D.
Elliott, R. K. (1992). “The Third Wave Breaks on the Shores of Accounting”. Accounting
Horizons, 6(2): 61-85.
Estes, R. (1976). ”Corporate social accounting”. John Wiley: NewYork.
Fasan, M., and Mio, C. (2017). “Fostering stakeholder engagement: The role of materiality
disclosure in integrated reporting”. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26: 288-305.
FRC (2014). “Guidance on the strategic report”. FRC: London.
Frías-Aceituno, J.-V., Rodríguez-Ariza, L., and García-Sanchez, I. M. (2013a). “Is integrated
reporting determined by a country’s legal system? An exploratory study”. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 44: 45-55.
Frías-Aceituno, J.-V., Rodríguez-Ariza, L., and García-Sanchez, I.M. (2013b), “The role of the
board in the dissemination of integrated corporate social reporting”. Corporate Social
Responsibility and Environmental Management, 20: 219-233.
Frías-Aceituno, J.-V., Rodríguez‐Ariza, L., & Garcia‐Sánchez, I. M. (2014). “Explanatory
factors of integrated sustainability and financial reporting”. Business Strategy and the
Environment, 23(1): 56-72.
Garcia-Sanchez, I. M., Rodriguez-Ariza, L., and Frías-Aceituno, J.-V. (2013). “The cultural
system and integrated reporting”. International Business Review, 22: 828-838.
García‐Sánchez, I. M., and Noguera‐Gámez, L. (2017a). “Integrated reporting and stakeholder
engagement: The effect on information asymmetry”. Corporate Social Responsibility and
Environmental Management, 24(5): 395-413.
García-Sánchez, I. M., and Noguera-Gámez, L. (2017b). “Integrated information and the cost
of capital”. International Business Review, 26(5): 959-975.

Integrated reporting and the capitals’ diffusion - Gibassier, Adams, and Jérôme - 2019 39
Gibassier, D. (2015). “The corporate reporting landscape: a market for virtue or the virtue of
marketization?”. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 6(4): 527-
536.
Gibassier, D., Rodrigue, M., and Arjaliès, D.-L. (2016). “From share value to shared value:
Exploring the role of accountants in developing integrated reporting in practice”,
IMA/ACCA report, available at:
https://www.imanet.org/insights-and-trends/external-reporting-and-disclosure-
management/share-value-to-shared-value?ssopc=1 (accessed 15th April, 2018).
Gleeson-White, J. (2015). “Six capitals, or can accountants save the planet - Rethinking
capitalism for the twenty-first century”, Allen & Unwin.
Gray, R. (1990). “The greening of accountancy. The profession after Pearce”, London, UK:
ACCA.
GRI (2013). “The sustainability content of integrated reports - a survey of pioneers”, available
at:
https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/GRI-IR.pdf (accessed 15th April, 2018).
Hopwood, A., Unerman, J., and Fries, J. (2010). “Accounting for sustainability: Practical
insights”, Rouletdge.
HM Treasury (2016). “Public sector annual reports: sustainability reporting guidance 2015-16”.
Available at:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment
_data/file/512663/PU1935_Public_sector_ARA_sustainability_guidance_2015-16.pdf
(accessed 15th April, 2018).
ICAS (1988). “Making Corporate Reports Valuable”. Available at:
https://www.icas.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/120982/Making-Corp-Reports-
Valuable.pdf (accessed 15th July, 2019).
IFAC (2017). “Creating value for SMEs through integrated thinking: The benefits of integrated
reporting”. Available at:
https://integratedreporting.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017/08/IFAC_CreatingValueforSMEs.pdf
IIRC (2010). “Why we need Integrated Reporting” in 2010 Newsletter, available at:
http://iirc.newsweaver.co.uk/newsletter/1ja775usz5leq5jjkzjymy (accessed 15th April,
2018).
IIRC (2011). “Towards Integrated Reporting, Communicating Value in the 21st Century”,
available at:
http://integratedreporting.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/IR-Discussion-Paper-
2011_spreads.pdf (accessed 15th April, 2018).
IIRC (2012). “<IR> in Japan”, available at:
http://iirc.newsweaver.co.uk/newsletter/pewlam2u5qm1kozk6fqq5p?a=2&p=29721115
&t=18150654 (accessed 22nd July, 2019).

Integrated reporting and the capitals’ diffusion - Gibassier, Adams, and Jérôme - 2019 40
IIRC (2013). “The international <IR> Framework”, available at:
https://integratedreporting.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/13-12-08-THE-
INTERNATIONAL-IR-FRAMEWORK-2-1.pdf (accessed 15th April 2018).
IIRC (2014). “Australian G100 backs <IR> innovation to improve reporting”, available at:
https://us4.campaign-
archive.com/?u=b36f6aeef75cea67e62812844&id=a15fd5a703&e=aa433ddabb#call
(accessed 23rd July, 2019).
IIRC (2014). “Brazilian Stock Exchange calls for "Report or Explain" on Integrated Reporting”,
https://us4.campaign-
archive.com/?u=b36f6aeef75cea67e62812844&id=52f2b873ad&e=aa433ddabb#back
(accessed 23rd July, 2019).
Jensen, J., and Berg, N. (2012). “Determinants of traditional sustainability reporting versus
integrated reporting. An institutionalist approach”. Business Strategy and the
Environment, 21: 299-316.
KPMG (2017). “Survey of integrated reports in Japan 2016”. Integrated Reporting Advisory
Group. Available at:
https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/xx/pdf/2017/06/survey-of-integrated-reports-in-
japan-2016.pdf
Lai, A., Melloni, G., and Stacchezzin, R. (2016). “Corporate sustainable development: is
‘integrated reporting’ a legitimation strategy?”, Business Strategy and the Environment,
25: 165-177.
Lawrence, T. B., and Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutions and institutional work. In S. R. Clegg, C.
Hardy, T. B. Lawrence, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies (2nd
edition) (pp. 215–254). London: SAGE Publications.
Matten, D., and Moon, J. (2008). “‘Implicit’ and ‘explicit’ CSR: A conceptual framework for
a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility”. Academy of
Management Review, 33(2): 404-424.
Mervelskemper, L., and Streit, D. (2017). “Enhancing market valuation of ESG performance:
Is integrated reporting keeping its promise?”. Business Strategy and the Environment,
26: 536-549.
Reimsbach, D., Hahn, R., and Gürtürk, A. (2018). “Integrated reporting and assurance of
sustainability information: An experimental study on professional investors’ information
processing”. European Accounting Review, 27(3): 559-581.
Robertson, F. A., and Samy, M. (2015). “Factors affecting the diffusion of integrated reporting
- a UK FTS 100 perspective”. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy
Journal, 6(2): 190-223.
SAICA (2015). “Integrated thinking: An exploratory survey”. Available at:
https://www.saica.co.za/portals/0/technical/sustainability/saicaintegratedthinkinglandsc
ape.pdf (accessed 15th April 2018).

Integrated reporting and the capitals’ diffusion - Gibassier, Adams, and Jérôme - 2019 41
Serafeim, G. (2015). “Integrated reporting and investor clientele”. Journal of Applied
Corporate Finance, 27(2): 34-51.
Setia, N., Abhayawansa, S., Joshi, M., and Huynh, A. V. (2015). “Integrated reporting in South
Africa: some initial evidence”. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy
Journal, 6(3): 397-424.
Sierra-García, L., Zorio-Grima, A., and García-Benau, M. A. (2015). “Stakeholder
engagement, corporate social responsibility and integrated reporting: An exploratory
study”. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 22: 286-304.
Steyn, M. (2014), “Organisational benefits and implementation challenges of mandatory
integrated reporting”. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 5(4):
476-503.
Thomson, I. (2015). “But does sustainability need capitalism or an integrated report’ a
commentary on ‘The International Integrated Reporting Council: A story of failure’ by
Flower, J.”. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 27: 18-22.
Todd, S. (2005). “Integrated Reporting issues and implications for reporters”, report sponsored
by Vancity. Available at:
https://www.vancity.com/SharedContent/documents/IntegratedReporting.pdf (accessed
15th April, 2018).
Vaz, N., Fernandez-Feijoo, B., and Ruiz, S. (2016). “Integrated reporting: an international
overview”. Business Ethics: A European Review, 25(4): 577-591.
WBCSD (2010). “Vision 2050, the new agenda for business”. Available at:
https://www.wbcsd.org/contentwbc/download/1746/21728 (accessed 15th April, 2018).
WBCSD (2014). “Integrated Reporting in South Africa: From Concept to Practice”, Future
Leaders’ Program 2014. Available at:
https://www.wbcsd.org/Projects/Education/Leadership-program/Resources/Integrated-
Reporting-in-South-Africa-From-Concept-to-Practice (accessed 22nd July, 2019).
WBCSD (2018). “Reporting Matters”. Available at:
https://docs.wbcsd.org/2018/10/Reporting_Matters_2018.pdf (accessed 15th July, 2019).
Wild, S., and van Staden, C. (2013). “Integrated reporting: Initial analysis of early reporters –
an institutional theory approach”. Conference proceeding of APIRA 2013.
White, A. (2005). “New wine, New bottles: The Rise of Non-Financial Reporting”, in “A
business brief by business for social responsibility”. Available at:
https://www.businesswire.com/portal/binary/com.epicentric.contentmanagement.servlet
.ContentDeliveryServlet/services/ir_and_pr/ir_resource_center/editorials/2005/BSR.pdf
(accessed 15th April, 2018)
Zhou, S., Simnett, R., and Green, W. (2017). “Does integrated reporting matter to the capital
market?”. Abacus, 53(1): 94-132.