No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Guest editorial: Integrated reporting and change: what are the impacts after more than a decade of integrated reporting?
... and managerial worlds and fuelled a lively debate that impassions accounting scholars (Dumay et al. 2023;De Villiers et al., 2020). ...
... Although criticisms have gained momentum within the academic debate on the capability of IR to drive change in organisational culture (Dumay and Dai, 2017;Dumay et al, 2023) and the business model, rather than only a change in the approach to providing additional data on the company, there is an insufficiency in the literature in terms of a critical approach to the mainstream theory of the company underpinning the IR model, especially from a feminist perspective. However, there are a few exceptions (Gibassier et al., 2020). ...
... IR concept and practice have elicited the interest of scholars and practitioners (Rinaldi et al., 2018) whose research endeavours have generated interesting (and sometimes controversial) insights, thus contributing to the scientific, political and managerial community progress in understanding the implementation of IR (Dumay et al, 2023;Pigatto et al, 2023, Stubbs andHiggins, 2014;Haji and Hossain, 2016;Chaidali and Jones, 2017;Gibassier et al., 2018;McNally and Maroun, 2018), its implications for stakeholders (Adams et al., 2016(Adams et al., , 2020Bernardi and Stark, 2018), especially for investors (Baboukardos and Rimmel, 2016), benefits (Sierra Garcia et al., 2015;Camilleri, 2018) and barriers and limitations. Moreover, scholars have investigated the promotion of IR by the IIRC (Rowbottom and Locke, 2016;Humphrey et al., 2017) and the gaps (De Villiers et al., 2014;De Villiers et al., 2020) that should be addressed to ensure its potential to change the thinking of corporate actors (Adams, 2015) and integrate sustainability actions and impacts into corporate strategic planning and decision making (Thomson, 2015). ...
This paper contributes to maintain active the debate in applying Feminist Approach to understand the theory of the firm underlining Integrated Reporting in different lens of capitalism. The work is useful to accounting scholars, standard setters and the general public, because there are practical implications especially important to the present development of the sustainability reporting scenery. The business theory underlying the IR framework remain clearly still a capitalist theory, but if in some cases organizational changes are activated, and therefore we are moving towards small changes in the corporate culture. This process can leave room for an area to include reflections on a different theory that can be generated incidentally, also starting from a model structured in itself and oriented towards the creation of value for investors. Finally, we think that by keeping the debate alive we can help sow a seed to improve the potential of accounting and accountability (social, environmental, sustainable). The research design is grounded on Feminist approach literature in economics and accounting. After literature analysis set of keywords are analyzed to identify the interpretative paradigms of the firm that can be associated with the masculine and feminine. The analysis use NVivo 12 and is addressed to the integrated reports released by health and pharmaceutical companies, that have been selected among the leading practices included in the IR examples website (IIRC Database as of May 11, 2021). This choice is due to investigate one of the most sensitive industries during the Covid-19 pandemic.
... The research design initially rests on the literature analysis concerning the connection between FE and FA to then consider prior contributions on the theory of the firm underlying IR (García-Sánchez et al., 2013;Girella et al., 2019;Dumay et al., 2023). ...
... The fact remains that the majority of studies (Dumay et al., 2023) explains the adoption of IR based on traditional theories that are either economic (agency theory) or socio-political (stakeholder, legitimacy and political economy perspectives) (Haji & Anifowose, 2016). Even among lesser bodies of theory, rarely does the focus fall on the paradigm of social trust (Sztompka, 1999;Chaidali & Jones, 2017) or on stewardship theory, which envisages IR within the context of corporate management and governance with long-term objectives (Adams et al., 2016, Adams & Abhayawansa, 2022. ...
... In summary, although both the practice and theory of IR are gaining progress (De Villiers et al., 2017, scant attention has been paid to feminist criticism within the IR discourse, and a critical reflection through the lens of FE is still lacking (Dumay et al., 2023). ...
Researchers from different fields frequently draw attention to prejudice, discrimination, and contested meanings in their work by utilizing feminist theory. In this vein, the purpose of this work is to contribute to the debate on the interaction between feminist economics (FE) and feminist accounting (FA) in order to understand whether there are openings towards possible change. Although there have only been a few uses of feminist theory in accounting, academics are likely aware of it. Our study in this field aims to change these issues not only to bring them to light, drawing from wondering if the theory of the firm underpinning the IR (Integrated Reporting) framework responds to the criticisms labeled by FE and FA and helps lessen global inequality and ecological emergencies. The research question is: “Does the theory of the firm underpinning the IR framework respond to the criticisms labeled by FE and FA in dialogue while contributing to reducing world inequalities and ecological emergencies?” A multi-method investigation was carried out, using both deductive and inductive approaches. The research design encompasses both the literature analysis about the connection between FE and FA and the theory of the firm at the core of IR, and the empirical analysis of the content of the 2020 integrated reports released by 21 companies active in the chemical/pharmaceutical sector, and taken from, the IR website. Findings reveal the “weakness” of IR in becoming an engine for effective change - albeit with some exceptions - and a substantial persistence of the status quo compared to the mainstream.
... Despite being portrayed as a win-win solution that meets substantial organizational accountability measures and is cost-effective for organizations, numerous scholars have critiqued the scope and substance of the IR agenda (Ahmed Haji & Anifowose, 2016). For certain organizations, IR is a complex and time-consuming process due to less-developed structuring of nonfinancial information or the high costs associated with its production (Dumay et al., 2023). While studies have confirmed an increase in the number of ESG disclosures following the adoption of IR (Solomon & Maroun, 2012), researchers have also noted instances where integrated reports may contain rhetorical disclosures (Dumay et al., 2017;Melloni et al., 2017) and exhibit a bias toward reporting only positive outcomes (Solomon & Maroun, 2012). ...
... The diverse implementation of IR introduces challenges in comparing one integrated report to another (Dumay et al., 2017), as companies may adhere to various IR principles and approaches. For example, some companies may focus solely on IR principles, while others delve into analyzing and measuring all six forms of capital-financial, manufactured, intellectual, human, social and relational, and natural-and their transformation through their business model (Dumay et al., 2023). Pistoni et al. (2018) evaluated the quality of integrated reports following the IR Framework by employing a scoring model. ...
This study draws upon media agenda‐setting theory to investigate the relationship between negative media coverage around environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues and the quality of integrated reporting (IR). In particular, we examine the top 100 South African listed companies in the 2013–2018 timeframe for 317 firm‐year observations. Our results reveal that IR quality is positively related to negative ESG media coverage. Thus, a company exposed to more media pressure issues higher‐quality IR consistent with its need to face scrutiny and potential reputational damage and to restore or maintain its legitimacy. Results are robust to different measures of negative ESG media coverage, controlling for ESG disclosures, and are confirmed by analyses aimed at addressing endogeneity (instrumental variable approach, firm‐fixed effects, and matched samples). Subsample analyses show that financial sector reputational concerns do not impact our results. Additional tests show no long‐term effects of negative media coverage on IR quality and that sustainability embeddedness alleviates a company's response to negative ESG news in terms of enhanced reporting.
... Other research carried out by de Villiers and Sharma (2020) and Mans-Kemp and van der Lugt (2020) noted that <IR> has not necessarily lived up to the expectation of being the corporate reporting norm. Dumay et al. (2023) also pointed out that, over a decade, no significant changes were made to the <IR> Framework even though there were widespread criticisms toward the framework. ...
... Based on the research problem earlier, there is still much uncertainty regarding the role that <IR> would play in the standard setting of the ISSB. Research pointed out that this is an area that should be investigated by academics [International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC), 2013;Dumay et al., 2023]. ...
Introduction: Sustainability reporting has become increasingly important to stakeholders, and therefore, there is a growing need for a global set of standards for sustainability reporting. The International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) has recently published new sustainability standards under the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) Foundation. The consolidation of integrated reporting into the IFRS Foundation creates the problem of whether there is still a need for principles in the future of sustainability reporting and how these principles will be applied in the standard setting of the ISSB in future. This study provides insights into the similarities and differences between the Framework and the ISSB's draft IFRS S1 standard and clarifies the role that could play in the future of sustainability reporting within the context of the newly issued IFRS S1 standard.
Methods: The study uses thematic content analysis on the two frameworks and comment letters submitted to the ISSB as part of the standard-setting process to understand the relevance of integrated reporting in sustainability reporting and to identify important principles contained within that can contribute to the ISSB standard-setting process in future.
Results: The study identified that there is a largely positive sentiment toward in developing sustainability standards within the IFRS Foundation. The study also identified important aspects where can play a significant role in standard development, such as the connectivity of information, integrated thinking, and the six capitals that can assist organizations in understanding the significant sustainability-related risks and opportunities.
Conclusion: The research points out pertinent sustainability principles that could be useful for the ISSB in future standard settings. Furthermore, the research adds to the existing literature on and can act as an impetus for further research on the use of principles in the standard-setting processes of the ISSB.
Purpose
This paper critically analyses the future of Integrated Reporting (IR) given recent and likely future developments in corporate reporting and sustainability disclosure standard setting.
Design/methodology/approach
This paper uses Alvesson and Deetz’s (2000) critical framework to consider the research question through insight (a review of the history of IR and the formation of the International Sustainability Standards Board [ISSB]), critique (considering power structures, momentum and global trends) and transformative redefinition (proposing reasons for how and why IR might survive or perish).
Findings
IR’s future as a reporting initiative is uncertain. Pressure from investors may lead to detailed sustainability disclosures being favoured over IR’s more holistic story-telling approach. This may result in IR joining the long list of abandoned corporate reporting initiatives. Yet IR is not incompatible with recent developments in non-financial reporting and may continue to thrive. IR aligns well with developments in management accounting practices and other voluntary forms of sustainability reporting. IR’s associated “Integrated Thinking” seeks to develop organisational decision-making that leads to sustainable value creation. Whether it lasts as an external reporting format or not, IR is likely to leave a legacy related to changes in reporting characteristics.
Originality/value
This study explores the future of IR at a critical juncture in corporate reporting history, considering the entry of the ISSB, which is fundamentally changing the landscape of sustainability disclosure standard setting.
Purpose
This study aims to provide a critical assessment of developments in the field of voluntary corporate non-financial and sustainability reporting and disclosure (VRD). The assessment is grounded in the empirical material of a three-year research project on integrated reporting (IR).
Design/methodology/approach
Alvesson and Deetz’s (2021) critical management framework structures the arguments in this paper. By investigating local phenomena and the extant literature, the authors glean insights that they later critique, drawing on the empirical evidence collected during the research project. Transformative redefinitions are then proposed that point to future opportunities for research on voluntary organisational disclosures.
Findings
The authors argue that the mainstream approaches to VRD, namely, incremental information and legitimacy theories, present shortcomings in addressing why and how organisations voluntarily disclose information. First, the authors find that companies adopting the International IR Council’s (IIRC, 2021) IR framework tend to comply with the framework only in an informal, rather than a substantial way. Second, the authors find that, at times, organisations serendipitously chance upon VRD practices such as IR instead of rationally recognising the potential ability of such practices to provide useful information for decision-making by investors. Also, powerful groups in organisations may use VRD practices to establish, maintain or restore power balances in their favour.
Research limitations/implications
The paper’s limitations stem directly from its aim to be a critical reflection. Even when grounded on empirics, a reflection is mainly a subjective effort. Therefore, different researchers could come to different conclusions and offer different lessons from the two case studies.
Practical implications
The different rationales the authors found for VRD should make a case for reporting institutions to tone down any investor-centric rhetoric in favour of more substantial disclosures. The findings imply that reporting organisations should approach the different frameworks with a critical eye and read between the lines of these frameworks to determine whether the purported normative arguments are achievable practice.
Originality/value
The authors reflect on timely and relevant issues linked to recent developments in the VRD landscape. Further, the authors offer possible ways forward for critical research that may rely on different methodological choices, such as interventionist and post-structuralist research.
Purpose
Motivated by claims that the International Integrated Reporting Framework (IRF) can be used to comply with Directive 2014/95/EU (the EU Directive) on non-financial and diversity disclosure, the purpose of this study is to examine whether companies can comply with corporate reporting laws using de facto standards or frameworks.
Design/methodology/approach
The authors adopted an interpretivist approach to research along with current regulatory studies that aim to investigate business compliance with the law using private sector standards. To support the authors’ arguments, publicly available secondary data sources were used, including newsletters, press releases and websites, reports from key players within the accounting profession, public documents issued by the European Commission and data from corporatergister.com.
Findings
To become a de facto standard or framework, a private standard-setter requires the support of corporate regulators to mandate it in a specific national jurisdiction. The de facto standard-setter requires a powerful coalition of actors who can influence the policymakers to allow its adoption and diffusion at a national level to become mandated. Without regulatory support, it is difficult for a private and voluntary reporting standard or framework to be adopted and diffused. Moreover, the authors report that the preferences stock market capitalism over sustainability because it privileges organisational sustainability over social and environmental sustainability, emphasises value creation over holding organisations accountable for their impact on society and the environment and privileges the entitlements of providers of financial capital over other stakeholders.
Research limitations/implications
The authors question the suitability of the goals of both the and the EU Directive during and after the COVID-19 crisis. The planned changes to both need rethinking as we head into uncharted waters. Moreover, the authors believe that the people cannot afford any more reporting façades.
Originality/value
The authors offer a critical analysis of the link between the and the EU Directive and how the can be used to comply with the EU Directive. By questioning the relevance of the compliance question, the authors advance a critique about the relevance of these and other legal and de facto frameworks, particularly considering the more pressing needs that must be met to address the economic, social and environmental implications of the COVID-19 crisis.
Purpose
This paper is motivated by the International Integrated Reporting Council’s (IIRC) call for feedback from all stakeholders with knowledge of the International Integrated Reporting Framework , and specifically of the enablers, incentives and barriers to its implementation. The paper synthesises insights from contemporary accounting research into integrated reporting (IR) as a general concept, and integrated reporting as espoused by the IIRC in the (IIRC, 2013). We specifically focus on possible barriers and emphasise the specific issues we feel could be rectified to advance the , along with the areas that may potentially hinder wider adoption and implementation.
Design/methodology/approach
The paper draws upon and synthesises academic analysis and insights provided in the IR and academic literature as well as various directives, policy and framework pronouncements.
Findings
The flexibility and lack of prescription concerning actual disclosures and metrics in the could allow it to be used for compliance, regardless of the other benefits lauded by the IIRC. Thus we see forces, both external and internal, driving adoption, with one prominent example being the European Union Directive on non-financial reporting. Because of the different ways in which IR is understood and enacted, there are numerous theoretical and empirical challenges for academics. Our paper highlights potential areas for further robust academic research, and the need to contribute to policy and practice.
Research limitations/implications
The paper provides the IIRC, academics, regulators and reporting organisations with insights into current practice and the framework. We highlight the need for further development and evidence to help inform improvements both from a policy and a practice perspective. A key limitation of our work is that we draw upon a synthesis of the existing literature which is still in an early stage of development.
Originality/value
The paper provides the IIRC with several insights into the current , and specifically with the enablers, incentives and barriers to its implementation. Also, it provides academic researchers with a number of important observations and an agenda upon which they can build their future research.
Purpose
This paper aims to explore the reporting challenges and related organisational mechanisms of change associated with disclosing corporate risks within integrated reports.
Design/methodology/approach
This paper adopts a Latourian performative approach to explore the organisational mechanisms of change in terms of networks of actors, both “human” and “non-human”, involved in the preparation of risk-related disclosure. Empirical evidence is collected by means of in-depth interviews with the preparers of an integrated reporting pioneer company.
Findings
Preparing disclosure on corporate risks in the context of integrated reporting demands close interaction among several actors. When disclosure shifts from listing key risks to providing information on how these risks are managed or connect with corporate strategy and value creation, departments not usually involved in corporate reporting play an active role and external stakeholders offer pertinent insights, benchmarks and feedback. Integrated reporting and risk management frameworks are the “non-human” actors that facilitate the engagement of diverse “human” actors.
Practical implications
Preparers should be aware that risk disclosure within integrated reports requires collaboration among (“human”) actors belonging to different departments and the engagement of external stakeholders. Preparers should consider the frameworks of integrated reporting and risk management as facilitators of cross-departmental discussions and dialogue, rather than mere contributors of guidelines and recommendations.
Originality/value
This study enriches the scant literature on organisational mechanisms of change made in response to integrated reporting challenges, showing subsequent advancements in the organisational process underlying the preparation of risk disclosure.
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to explore the perceived benefits of integrated reporting (IR) and factors influencing the motives that supervisory board members (SBMs) have for advocating a change towards IR implementation.
Design/methodology/approach
An exploratory survey study was conducted to investigate the influence of external market conditions, internal organizational conditions and observed benefits on the motivation to advocate IR adoption in companies that have not yet implemented IR. A unique set of survey data from 62 SBMs of Dutch companies was used for analysing the propositions derived from IR literature and based on institutional theory, legitimacy theory and diffusion of innovation theory.
Findings
The respondents indicated to be supportive of IR adoption. SBMs who had experienced the implementation of IR observed that IR offers benefits. Their motives for advocating a change towards IR in companies that had not implemented IR were influenced most by the observed benefits in IR companies. SBMs only involved in companies that had not adopted IR are motivated to support IR adoption to a similar extent. These findings suggest that directly observed benefits by SBMs need to exceed a considerable minimum level before these SBMs are more motived to advocate IR than their peers who have not witnessed the implementation of IR and that experiences are shared across companies. The motivation of both groups is influenced by external market conditions but not by internal organizational conditions.
Practical implications
The findings have implications for potential IR adopters and institutions promoting the further diffusion of IR as they emphasize the need for tangible benefits of IR and confirm that sharing good practices and benefits of IR can provide a catalyst for IR adoption. The findings contribute to the understanding of the motivation of SBMs as an important organizational condition for implementing IR as this study provides insights in the factors that drive this motivation of key actors influencing the decision to implement IR. Furthermore, the finding that these factors predominantly comprise tangible results and external market conditions is relevant from an organizational change perspective.
Social implications
Understanding the mechanisms of IR-adoption decisions provides a relevant basis for deploying programmes promoting IR as a general reporting standard. This could provide society and a broad range of stakeholders with access to information incorporated in integrated reports. It could ultimately have a major impact on society by improving decision-making and increasing the long-term sustainability of organizations and their relations with stakeholders.
Originality/value
This study provides preliminary empirical evidence concerning the perspectives of SBMs on their motives for advocating IR, based on a unique sample from a country that has been involved with IR from its start.
Demand for chocolate is at an all-time high. However, producing chocolate comes with some sticky social, environmental and economic problems. This paper focuses on the issues of child labour, forced child labour and unsustainable farming practice within the chocolate industry, and specifically on the discourse about Nestlé’s Ivory Coast cocoa supply chain. We analyse corporate disclosures, related counter accounts and subsequent responses in new and old media as a dynamic communication process. A mobilising of Goffman’s (1959) dramaturgical metaphor of impression management contextualises each communication as a performance towards an audience. Behind the communications is Nestlé’s need to repair its legitimacy - because child labour and unsustainable farming exist in its cocoa supply chain - and the audience’s vested interests in their counter-performances. The Nestlé case offers substantive and nuanced insights into corporate disclosure and communication practices, how the Internet is changing the more unidirectional performances of the past, and how appreciation of counter accounts and subsequent responses to counter accounts contributes to theoretical understanding as well as provides insights into the plight of cocoa’s child labourers.
In 2020, intellectual capital (IC) accounting research has advanced beyond its original strategic focus on measuring, managing, and reporting IC. In our introduction, we define IC as the collection of intangible resources, knowledge, experience, and intellectual property an organisation, community, country or society has and uses to create economic, utility, social and environmental value (Dumay, 2016). Our
understanding of how IC impacts and is impacted by, knowledge-intensive institutions and societies in complicated and convoluted ways today stands in sharp contrast to that developed in Mouritsen and Roslender’s (2009) Critical Perspectives on Accounting (CPA) special issue on “Critical Intellectual Capital”. That CPA special issue focused on organizational reporting practices and was concerned with calculation, numbering, quantification, and measurements. But IC research has shifted ‒ now the focus is on understanding IC from multiple perspectives: internal, regional, national, environmental, and societal, and through different stages (Dumay, Guthrie, & Rooney, 2018). This special issue builds upon Mouritsen and Roslender’s (2009) call for a more critical perspective on how organizations use IC, not just account for it.
Purpose
Despite the growing literature on integrated reporting (IR) adoption and the emphasis on integrated thinking capitals, prior research works only focused on the financial and non-financial reporting rather than the cornerstones of IR. In order to fill this gap, the purpose of this paper is to investigate the value relevance of organizational capital (OC) after the mandatory adoption of IR in South Africa over the period 2006–2015.
Design/methodology/approach
The authors have used quantitative methods to test the hypotheses. The South African context is unique since the Johannesburg Stock Exchange is the first to mandate listed firms to adopt IR following King III report in March 2010.
Findings
The findings provide the first evidence, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, on the positive and significant impact of IR adoption on the value relevance of OC.
Originality/value
The authors contribute to IR literature by providing new insight on the value relevance of one capital from a new perspective addressing the importance of resources as inputs to the business model highlighted by integrated thinking in the IR framework. The findings derive various implications for the International Integrated Reporting Council, managers, decision makers and the research community.
The diffusion of integrated reporting has encouraged academics to pay greater attention to this topic. Several studies have been conducted since the 2011 of the Discussion Paper "Towards Integrated Reporting: Communicating Value in the 21st Century" by the International Integrated Reporting Council. However, conflicting opinions and the wide range of extant studies underscore the need to better understand the current contributions in the field. Furthermore, the novelty of integrated reporting makes it necessary to define as yet unexplored fields in this research stream. To that end, we conduct a systematic review of the literature to classify the research according to normative and descriptive perspectives and identify an agenda that will be able to guide future studies. The review shows that the concept of value creation, internal and qualitative determinants, the content and quality of integrated reporting, and its impacts need further investigation.
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of the Danish Guideline Project (DGP) and its subsequent fate within participating companies since its conclusion in late 2002. Particular focus is placed on the traction that the intellectual capital statement (ICS) approach to reporting, as the principal outcome of the project, was able to acquire in practice.
Design/methodology/approach
Following the reconstruction of the original sample of 102 companies that originally participated in the project, a survey using semi-structured interviews was pursued among 64 individuals who were identified as having some involvement with the guideline project and/or producing ICSs in these companies. In addition to the interviews, a range of secondary information has been used to supplement the primary data and research protocol.
Findings
The project was found to have enjoyed only modest success and thereby failed to achieve any substantial traction among the participating companies and related public stakeholders. On balance, however, respondents believed that the exercise had been a positive experience, with benefits for the internal management of the companies, as well as for human capital (employees). The obstacles that radical initiatives such as the ICS continue to face should not be underestimated.
Research limitations/implications
A single study of a specific initiative necessarily entails many limitations. It is conceivable that the views of some of the participants in the guideline project who are absent from the present sample may provide details of a different experience, although it is unlikely that these would seriously challenge the findings reported here.
Originality/value
This study is the first to explore the fate of the critically acclaimed ICS approach among companies participating in the DGP.
Purpose
– The purpose of this paper is to identify and articulate concepts and approaches to qualitative generalisation that will offer qualitative accounting researchers avenues for enhancing and justifying the general applicability of their research findings and conclusions.
Design/methodology/approach
– The study and arguments draw from multidisciplinary approaches to this issue. The analysis and theorising is based on published qualitative research literatures from the fields of education, health sciences, sociology, information systems, management and marketing, as well as accounting.
Findings
– The paper develops two overarching generalisation concepts for application by qualitative accounting researchers. These are built upon a number of qualitative generalisation concepts that have emerged in the multidisciplinary literatures. It also articulates strategies for enhancing the generalisability of qualitative accounting research findings.
Research limitations/implications
– The paper provides qualitative accounting researchers with understandings, arguments and justifications for the generalisability of their research and the related potential for wider accounting and societal contributions. It also articulates the key factors that impact on the quality of research generalisation that qualitative researchers can offer.
Originality/value
– This paper presents the most comprehensively sourced and developed approach to the concepts, strategies and unique deliverables of qualitative generalising hitherto available in the accounting research literature.
This paper reviews the field of integrated reporting ( ) to develop insights into how research is developing, offer a critique of the research to date, and outline future research opportunities. We find that most published research presents normative arguments for and there is little research examining practice. Thus, we call for more research that critiques ’s rhetoric and practice. To frame future research we refer to parallels from intellectual capital research that identifies four distinct research stages to outline how research might emerge. Thus, this paper offers an insightful critique into an emerging accounting practice.
This commentary analyses the paper by John Flower that critiques the sustainability of the IIRC proposed framework for Integrated Reporting. This commentary largely supports the criticisms and conclusions of this paper and provides some additional insights into the possible impact of Integrated Reporting.
IFRS foundation announces sustainability board go-ahead”, IPE Magazine
- S Bouvier
- S Rust
Survey of integrated reporting in Japan
- Kpmg