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

The International Integrated Reporting Council advocates that integrated reporting (IR)\ud should become the worldwide norm for corporate reporting aimed at serving the needs of\ud investors. Nonetheless, only in South Africa has IR been mandated. We study the impact of\ud the reporting regime change in South Africa on analyst forecast accuracy over the period\ud 2008 to 2012, as a way of evaluating users’ perceptions of the usefulness of IR. We theorise\ud that any effects of IR will be greater the greater is the level of disclosures of environmental,\ud social and governance performance. We find results consistent with those who support IR\ud and our theory that the level of environmental, social and governance disclosures is a\ud mediating variable in determining the effectiveness of IR. The results are driven by the levels\ud of environmental disclosure and, to a lesser extent, governance disclosure. Our results\ud provide some support for those who advocate the virtues of integrated reporting

Purpose This paper is motivated by the call for feedback by the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) from all stakeholders with knowledge of the International Integrated Reporting Framework (<IRF>) 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 <IR> as espoused by the IIRC in the <IRF> (IIRC, 2013). The authors specifically focus on possible barriers and emphasise the specific issues the authors feel could be rectified to advance the <IRF>, along with the areas that may potentially hinder its wider adoption and implementation. Design/methodology/approach The paper draws upon and synthesises academic analysis and insights provided in the IR and <IR> 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 <IRF> could allow it to be used for compliance, regardless of the other benefits lauded by the IIRC. Thus the authors see forces, both external and internal, driving <IR> 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. The authors paper highlights potential areas for further robust academic research and the need to contribute to <IR> policy and practice. Research limitations/implications The paper provides the IIRC, academics, regulators and reporting organisations with insights into current practice and the <IRF>. The authors highlight the need for further development and evidence to help inform improvements both from a policy and a practice perspective. A key limitation of the authors’ work is that the authors 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 <IRF> 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 the authors can build their future research.

No abstract

No abstract

Intellectual capital accounting in the age of integrated reporting: A commentary AbstractPurpose: This commentary explores the extent to which the practice of integrated reporting (IR) in organisations can be a vehicle for furthering and sustaining the practice of accounting for intellectual capital (IC). It introduces the eight papers forming this special issue that demonstrates how organisations are developing practices at the nexus of IC and IR. Methodology:The commentary is a review of the eight papers, and it connects the outcomes from these papers into some future research directions based on an interpretive approach and the special issue editors' expertise on IC and IR. Findings:The papers published in this special issue provide a useful foundation for extending the research project on integrated reporting-led IC accounting. However, there is a lack of research in this special issue that goes much beyond third stage IC research, which is directed at strengthening IC practices inside organisational boundaries. Originality:The special issue presents leading-edge research into the nexus between IC and IR to inform future research opportunities. Research implications:While it is essential to understand how IR works in practice moving beyond organisational boundaries it is even more critical if companies are to survive and thrive in an increasingly turbulent business operating environment. Thus, this commentary offers arguments as to how IC and IR research can extend into fourth and fifth stage research paradigms.

No abstract

No abstract