Institutional antecedents of integrated reporting quality: The moderating role of board independence

Abstract

This study aims to examine a set of institutional isomorphic influences toward integrated reporting quality (IRQ) and the role of board independence in moderating such influences. The results from a cross‐sectional sample of 200 international companies indicated that both coercive (regulatory quality) and normative isomorphism (press freedom, CEO with accounting qualification, Dow Jones Sustainability Index listing, and winning an IR award) exert positive effects on IRQ. Moreover, board independence moderates positively for the effects of mimetic isomorphism (environmental sensitive industry) on IRQ. This study contributes to filling the gap in the literature by offering a multi‐theory approach to analyzing the antecedent of IRQ from the lenses of both institutional and agency theory. It also offers a practical contribution for corporate IR adopters, users, and regulatory authorities to improve corporate reporting. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study that examines the moderating role of board independence on IRQ.

Forecasting the Quality Assessment of Integrated Reporting of Corporate Enterprises: Empirical Experience of South Africa

“…Won, A. Amran, and E.Y. Chu [7] identified the institutional prerequisites for the quality of integrated reporting. A group of Indian researchers S. Devarapalli, L.M.…”

Sustainability reporting: Current state and challenges

“…This theory describes another motive for sustainability reporting by companies. Third most prominent approach is institutional theory (Jeriji & Nasfi, 2022;Posadas et al, 2023;Santos et al, 2022;Wong et al, 2022) which identify organisations as a follower of industry norms and explain corporate action more as a social legitimacy instead of built on real effectiveness or benefit of actions and reporting. Some more theories which were used in the literature to add more dimensions are, Signalling theory (Sun, 2023;Sun & Lange, 2022), Contingency theory (Ganescu, 2012;Miles & Ringham, 2019) Agency theory (Delbufalo, 2018;Hamad et al, 2020;Janggu et al, 2014), value creation theory (Buallay, 2019;Buallay et al, 2020), and so on.…”

“…In recent years there has been a growing body of academic literature on sustainability reporting including studies on drivers and barriers to sustainability reporting (Daugaard & Ding, 2022;Dissanayake et al, 2021;Juusola & Srouji, 2022;Wong et al, 2022), the impact of sustainability reporting on organisational performance (Agostini et al, 2022;Ahsan & Qureshi, 2021;Buallay et al, 2020;Fuadah et al, 2022;Giron et al, 2021;Pulino et al, 2022), and the role of sustainability reporting in shaping organisational culture and behaviour (Azmat & Zutshi, 2012;Chirilli et al, 2022;Fuadah et al, 2022;Lahuerta-Otero & González-Bravo, 2018). There has also been increasing research into the use of technology and digital tools for sustainability reporting such as blockchain and artificial intelligence, and their potential to improve quality and transparency of sustainability reporting (Cerchiaro et al, 2021;Pizzi et al, 2022;Tajpour et al, 2022).…”

Cultural Influence on Corporate Sustainability: A Board of Directors Perspective

“…2.1. Institutional Theory and Board Directors Wong et al (2023) used the institutional theory in the field of board directors as a theoretical framework that allows explaining environmental factors that may contribute to the understanding of stakeholders. Another important aspect is that it highlights the relevance of the firm's environment, especially the regulatory pressures that legitimize corporate practice (DiMaggio and Powell 1983).…”