Integrated reporting: On the need for broadening out and opening up

Abstract

Purpose-The purpose of this paper is to critically assess integrated reporting so as to "broaden out" and "open up" dialogue and debate about how accounting and reporting standards might assist or obstruct efforts to foster sustainable business practices. Design/methodology/approach-The authors link current debates about integrated reporting to prior research on the contested politics of social and environmental reporting, and critiques of the dominance of business case framings. The authors introduce research from science and technology studies that seeks to broaden out and open up appraisal methods and engagement processes in ways that highlight divergent framings and politically contentious issues, in an effort to develop empowering designs for sustainability. The authors demonstrate the strong resonance between this work and calls for the development of dialogic/polylogic accountings that take pluralism seriously by addressing constituencies and perspectives currently marginalized in mainstream accounting. The authors draw and build on both literatures to critically reflect on the International Integrated Reporting Council's (IIRC, 2011, 2012a, b, 2013a, b) advocacy of a business case approach to integrated reporting as an innovation that can contribute to sustainability transitions. Findings-The authors argue that integrated reporting, as conceived by the IIRC, provides a very limited and one-sided approach to assessing and reporting on sustainability issues. While the business case framing on which it rests might assist in extending the range of phenomena accounted for in organizational reports, it remains an ideologically closed approach that is more likely to reinforce rather than encourage critical reflection on "business as usual" practices. Recognizing that the meaning and design of integrated reporting are still far from stabilized, the authors also illustrate more enabling possibilities aimed at identifying and engaging diverse socio-political perspectives. Practical implications-Science and technology studies research on the need to broaden out and open up appraisal methods, together with proposals for dialogic/polylogic accountings, facilitates a critical, nuanced discussion of the value of integrated reporting as a change initiative that might foster transitions to more sustainable business practices. Originality/value-The authors link ideas and findings from science and technology studies with literature on dialogic/polylogic accountings to engage current debates around the merits of integrated reporting as a change initiative that can contribute to sustainability. This paper advances understanding of the role of accounting in sustainability transitions in three main ways: first, it takes discussion of accounting change beyond the organizational level, where much professional and academic literature is currently focussed, and extends existing critiques of business case approaches to social and environmental reporting; second, it emphasizes the political and power-laden nature of appraisal process...

Institutional isomorphism and corporate social responsibility: towards a conceptual model

“…New mandatory reporting rules in Europe (Directive 2014/95/EU) and stock exchange listing rules in, inter alia, Singapore, Kuala lumpur and Copenhagen also require companies to disclose non-financial information (still not necessarily integrated with financial information). however some authors (Brown and Dillard, 2014) suggest that overcoming shortcomings of the dominating neoliberal doctrine is not just the matter of introduction of mandatory regulations. As it has been argued in the proposed model coercive pressures have little impact on the diffusion of strategic or systemic modes of CSR.…”

The Journey towards Integrated Reporting in Bangladesh

“…Rensburg and Botha (2014) demonstrated that integrated reports were taken as additional disclosures and these reports were taken or used as the main source of information by the very limited number of providers of financial capital. Many studies have addressed the needs of <IR> (Brown and Dillard, 2014;Cheng et al, 2014;Villiers et al, 2014;Adams, 2015). Lee and Yeo (2016) asserted that the benefits of this reporting exceed its costs.…”

Reporting on Long-Term Value Creation—The Example of Public Canadian Energy and Mining Companies

“…There are several reasons for this. The <IR> framework, for instance, has received widespread criticism for being "one-sided" and "limited" [54,55]. In 2014, Haller and van Staden also argued that for the application of the concept of integrated reporting at the corporate level using the <IR> framework is not sufficient [56].…”