| Source |
Problem solved |
Result of research |
| Dilling & Harris (2018) |
To analyze longitudinal disclosure quality and quantity trends in reporting on long-term value creation of publicly traded companies. Content analysis was conducted in order to assess disclosure on long-term value creation in annual financial and sustainability reports |
Reports were very diverse and very difficult to compare. The question is now: would this improve dramatically if mandatory regulated standards were to be implemented right now? Based ont he analysis of the content of the annual financial and non-financial reports, it became evident that many public companies currently seem not to be in the situation to prepare an efficient long-term value creation report. At the same time, as mentioned above repeatedly, it seems the move towards regulation and standards is picking up and some regulators are very keen on getting started. On one hand, having a common framework would initially help making the reports easier to compare. However, this approach is not without drawbacks. Even though it was found that companies are increasingly conforming to reporting language of existing reporting guidelines over time, they also stated that the disclosureswere «generic, rather than company-specific, and lack substance» |
| Montecalvo, Farneti, & de Villiers (2018) |
To extend the understanding of IR in the public sector. Research question was: How has IR influenced the social and environmental (sustainability) disclosures |
Initially coercive, then a combination of coercive, normative, and mimetic isomorphism motivated the disclosure of more sustainability information during the 15-year period analysed. However, this information did not cover all aspects of sustainability—in particular inter-generational equity. The adoption of IR was, in this case, largely driven by normative isomorphism |
| Adams (2018) |
To stimulate debate on how integrated thinking and reporting can contribute to value creation for university stakeholders and help to achieve the UN’s sustainable development goals (sdgs) |
Non-financial reports need to be viewed with a degree of sceptism. Descriptions of processes (for example, in relation to materiality), quantified data, reporting of targets and performance against targets, reporting on governance processes and non-financial assurance add to the credibility of the data |
| Gibassier, Rodrigue, & Arjaliès (2018) |
To analyze the process through which an International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) pilot company adopted “integrated reporting” (IR), a management innovation that merges financial and non-financial reporting |
One of the most powerful myths shaping today’s management practices is certainly that of “shareholder supremacy” – the myth according to which the ultimate goal of business organizations is to maximize shareholder value. There is clear evidence that neither the legal nor the financial systems comprise such requirements, yet corporate reporting continues to favor shareholder value at the expense of global performance, leading most management innovations to pursue the maximization of financial performance. Despite the importance of (shareholder supremacy) myths in the adoption of management innovations, research into the workings of these myths is scant |
| Rinaldi, Unerman, & de Villiers (2018) |
To identify key challenges, opportunities, strengths and weaknesses experienced by the integrated reporting (IR) idea since the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC)’s Discussion Paper was published in late 2011 |
This paper extends IR accounting research by reconciling insights from an understandably fragmented emerging literature, by locating the prior literature in the five phases through which IR has moved. By following the IR idea from its formation to its dissemination and impact, this paper provides a multi-dimensional perspective on IR—highlighting the dynamics and interrelationships in the literature.This study identified gaps regarding the stages of the IR idea journey that have not been covered by the extant academic literature.This paper demonstrates how the idea journey framework can be used to shape and add coherence to the overall body of IR research |
| Lai,Melloni, & Stacchezzini (2018) |
The purpose of this paper is to analyse how the preparers’ mode of cognition influences the patterns of accountability associated with IR |
It offers insights into how the implementation of IR can stimulate reconsiderations of and changes in corporate accountability. In particular, IR can enhance accountability by facilitating dialogue with various stakeholders, even if investors and other financial stakeholders remain the primary addressees. In this respect, this research contributes to the debate about the possibilities (and limits) of IR for enhancing corporate accountability, extending beyond the largely conceptual approaches that thus far have mainly investigated the shifting scope and content of the IIRF.The IR project facilitates “narrative-based reporting” (Beattie and Smith, 2013, p. 251), in opposition with the proliferation of (and threats associated with) calculative forms of accountability (Lowe et al., 2012; mckernan and mcphail, 2012). It thus clarifies that topics that are not traditionally addressed by financial reporting but that are central to the IIRF (e.g. Strategy, business model) can help force meaningful narratives of the company’s value creation story. The present research elucidates the role of preparers and reveals that their (narrative) mode of cognition can orient the content of the IR and address accountability tensions. This empirical analysis suggests that IR preparers do not feel particularly constrained by the guiding principles or content elements stated by the IIRF; they seek (and declare) their compliance, but the IIRC considers Generali’s IR compliance only partial, as detailed in footnote |
| Raut, Naoufel, & Kharat (2017) |
To develop an effective and integrated MCDM model for the evaluation of the sustainability practices in the banking services, employing a multi-stage, fuzzy MCDM model that integrates the Balanced Scorecard, fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS. The approach aims to evaluate sustainability from the following four perspectives: financial stability, customer relationship management, internal business process and environmentfriendly management system |
The performance evaluation criteria are grouped under the four dimensions of BSC: ‘FS: Financial Stability’, which includes Criteria FS1–FS8, ‘CRM: Customer Relationship Management’, which includes Criteria CRM1–CRM5, ‘IBP: Internal Business Process’, which is constituted of IBP1–IBP10 criteria, and ‘EFMS: Environment Friendly Management System’, which consists of the EFMS1–EFMS9 criteria |
| Yip & Bocken (2018) |
to explore business models for sustainability in the service industry, particularly banking. It explores the receptiveness of customers towards sustainable business models pursued by banks |
A new set of archetypes articulated for the banking industry that facilitates further innovation and systematic analysis of sustainable banking practices. A methodology was formalized which can be repeated for categorizing sustainable business model archetypes in different industries. The findings of customer traction related to the archetypes help banks to focus on the most welcomed archetypes for achieving doing good and doing well |
