Purpose Integrated thinking is central to the International Integrated Reporting Council’s (IIRC’s) integrated reporting (IR) framework, which is in turn is related to a potential resurgence of intellectual capital (IC) reporting. However, it remains unclear how key IR stakeholders understand this concept in theory or practice. The purpose of this paper is to explore how key stakeholders interpret integrated thinking; and how pilot organizations are applying integrated thinking in practice. Design/methodology/approach The study involved in-depth semi-structured interviews with key IR stakeholders in Australia, including two IR pilot organizations, one professional association, an accounting professional body, an accounting firm and two IIRC officials. Findings First, the IIRC has not fully defined and articulated the concept of integrated thinking, and there is no shared consensus among practitioners. Second, there is evidence of an evolving understanding of integrated thinking within practice. What remains unclear is how this understanding will develop over time. Research limitations/implications Since interviews were conducted with a relatively small sample of participants in Australia, the results may not be generalizable across different contexts. The study emphasizes the need to interpret carefully IR’s potential contribution to organizational practice through either reporting in general, or IC reporting in particular. Originality/value Despite the centrality of integrated thinking to IR, there has been limited research to date on the concept. Clarifying what integrated thinking means in practice can improve our understanding of a key IR concept, and can advance our understanding of IR’s potential to improve IC reporting and research.

No abstract

As environmental protection has become a critical factor in achieving sustainable development, organizational stakeholders are becoming increasingly interested in corporate environmental performance (CEP). Many organizations evaluate their CEP but few academic studies have sought to evaluate it. This study undertakes CEP evaluation using an environmental performance measurement (EPM) model consisting of four managerial performance indicators (MPIs: organizational system, stakeholder relations, operational countermeasures and environmental tracking) and two operational performance indicators (OPIs: inputs and outputs). Principal component analysis (PCA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) are used to test model reliability and construct validity. The relationship between MPIs and OPIs has also been analysed using correlation coefficients among the six indicators. Results indicate that there were multiple dimensions to measure under an organizational system as opposed to ideally a single factor. No single model can be effectively used due to different geographical locations and differences between companies from various industry sectors. EPM is more dependent on its organizational system and stakeholder relations than operational countermeasures and environmental tracking. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.

This study presents a survey of the attitudes of corporate managers and managerial students across Australia, the People's Republic of China and Indonesia toward 18 key contemporary environmental management issues. The study sought to explore whether respondents from these countries, characterized by differing levels of development, also differ in their attitude toward environmental management. Results indicated that, despite age being a moderating factor, significant differences did exist between the 676 country respondents on 15 of the 18 questions. Contrary to expectations, Australian respondents were more cautious of supporting a forthright view on environmental issues, whilst Chinese respondents favoured a more centralized approach to decision making regarding the environment. The results lend marginal support to the new environmental paradigm (NEP), but also to the radicalization of environmental issues and age as a possible influence on respondent beliefs. Copyright

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore the perceptions of potential users about water accounting reports prepared under Australian general purpose water accounting (GPWA), which applies financial accounting techniques to water and could be extended to other areas of natural resource management. In particular, the paper examines the extent to which users believe GPWA reports are useful and facilitate the discharge of accountability by water managers. Design/methodology/approach – As a theoretical lens the authors apply an extended version of Gray et al.’s (1996) accountability model. The authors utilise mixed method research design comprising a questionnaire administered to users with water-related interests and an analysis of public submissions to the Water Accounting Standards Board on the Exposure Draft of Australian Water Accounting Standard 1. Findings – Overall, users perceive the introduction of GPWA as useful and believe that the benefits will outweigh the costs. The adoption of a financial accounting approach in terms of accounting standards and prescribed methods for booking and disclosing water “transactions” was broadly supported. In terms of the main users of reports, there was some ambiguity but findings suggested that government agencies were likely to be the main users of GPWA. Users were also concerned about the degree of judgement required to determine the identity and boundaries of a “water report entity”. Perhaps the most controversial aspect related to accountability; while the Accountability Statement was broadly supported there was little consensus that GPWA collectively discharged the accountability of water managers. Taken collectively, these results suggest that GPWA may be more useful for improving management performance than accountability. Practical implications – The findings suggest that future iterations of the standard need to reconsider how accountability might be discharged through the production of GPWA. The broad support for GPWA suggests, however, that the financial accounting approach – and hence the accounting community – may also make a valuable contribution to other areas of natural resource accounting. Originality/value – This study contributes to the emerging but still limited literature on GPWA and the fundamentally different approach to natural resource accounting it represents. While some previous studies have examined potential users of GPWA none have done so after the standard has been fully developed, and no previous studies have adopted the mixed research design utilised in this study.