The association between integrated reporting and firm valuation

Kin-Wai Lee; Gillian Hian-Heng Yeo

doi:10.1007/s11156-015-0536-y

Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting

November 2016, Volume 47, Issue 4, pp 1221–1250 | Cite as

The association between integrated reporting and firm valuation

Authors
Authors and affiliations

Kin-Wai LeeEmail author
Gillian Hian-Heng Yeo

Original Research

First Online: 14 September 2015

2.5k Downloads
16 Citations

Abstract

This paper examines the association between Integrated Reporting and firm valuation. Using a sample of listed firms in South Africa, we examine the association between cross-sectional variation in Integrated Reporting disclosures and firm valuation in the period after the implementation of Integrated Reporting. We find that firm valuation is positively associated with Integrated Reporting disclosures. This result suggests that on average, the benefits of Integrated Reporting exceed its costs. We predict that Integrated Reporting reduces the information processing costs in firms with complex operating and informational environment. Consistent with our prediction, we find that the positive association between firm valuation and Integrated Reporting is stronger in the firms with higher organizational complexity, suggesting that Integrated Reporting improves the information environment in complex firms such as firms with high intangible assets, firms with multiple business segments and large firms. Furthermore, we find that in firms with higher external financing needs, the sub-sample of firms with higher Integrated Reporting have higher firm valuations, suggesting that Integrated Reporting mitigates the information asymmetry between corporate insiders and external suppliers of capital. Additional analysis indicates that firms with high Integrated Reporting outperform those with low Integrated Reporting both in terms in stock market and accounting performance.

Keywords

Firm valuation Integrated reporting Corporate disclosures

JEL Classification

G30 G32 G34

This is a preview of subscription content, to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We appreciate the insightful comments and constructive suggestions from the editor (Cheng-Few Lee) and the referees. Kin-Wai Lee acknowledges the financial support from Nanyang Technological University’s Tier 1 research Grant RG175/14.

Appendix 1: Construction of Integrated Reporting Score (IRSCORE)

In this section, we describe the construction of our Integrated Reporting Score (IRSCORE) and provide evidence supporting its reliability and validity. We construct a composite integrated reporting score (IRSCORE) based on the information firms provide in their integrated reports. According to the International Integrated Reporting (IIR) Framework by the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) (December 2013), there are eight major content elements of the integrated report. The IIR Framework does not specify the weights to be allocated to the content elements. In the absence of specific theory on the relative weights to be allocated to different content elements, we construct our integrated reporting score (IRSCORE) as an equal-weighted score of the eight major content elements.

Our construction of the IRSCORE is essentially a content analysis of integrated reporting disclosure based on the IIR Framework. In each major content element, we outline 5 questions to measure the comprehensiveness and quality of the IR disclosure based on the principles embedded in the IIR framework. We evaluate the information provided in response to each of the question on a scale of 0–5 where 0 represents non-compliance with 〈IR〉 principles and 5 represents strong compliance with 〈IR〉 principles. Hence, the minimum score per each major content element is 0 (comprising 5 questions × 0 point per question) and the maximum score per each major content element is 25 (comprising 5 questions × 5 points per question). We repeated this scoring algorithm for all 8 major content elements. Hence, the final aggregated IRSCORE ranges from a minimum of 0 points (comprising 0 points per each major content element × 8 major content elements) to a maximum of 200 points (comprising 25 points per major content element × 8 major content elements).

We employ two research assistants who are knowledgeable in IR to manually evaluate the integrated reports based on the IIR Framework and to construct the IRSCORE for each company in the sample. We tested for inter-rater consistency and reliability of the evaluation using the Cronbach’s alpha test. A Cronbach’s alpha score of 91 % was obtained.¹²

We evaluated the extent to which the information disclosed in the integrated report address the questions as shown below in each content element. The questions are based on information provided in the 2013 IR Framework.

Item	Major content element	Questions
1	Organizational overview and external environment	What is the organisation’s mission, vision, culture and values and the circumstances under which it operates? What is the organization’s competitive landscape and market positioning? How is the organization’s ability to create value in the short, medium and long-term affected by significant factors in the external environment? Does the integrated report provide information about the effects of significant external environmental factors on the organization such as legitimate needs and interests of stakeholders, macro and micro economic conditions including economic stability, globalization and industry trends, market forces, technological changes, societal issues, environmental challenges, political and regulatory environment? Does the integrated report link the significant factors affecting the external environment to the availability, quality and affordability of capitals that the organization uses or affects?
2	Strategy and resource allocation	What is the organisation’s short, medium and long term strategic objectives and how does it intend to get there? What are the organisation’s resource allocation plans? Does the organization link its strategy and resource allocation plans to its business model and changes needed to implement its strategy? Does the organization link its strategy and resource allocation plans to external environmental influences, stakeholder engagement and risks and opportunities identified? What differentiates the organization in terms of competitive advantage and its ability to create value?
3	Business model	What is the organization’s business model? To what extent does the business model create value for the organization in the short, medium and long term? What information does the integrated report provide about the inputs (stock of capitals), business activities, outputs and outcomes of the business model? How is the business model linked to other content elements such as strategy, risks and opportunities and performance? For organizations that operate in multiple businesses with multiple business models, what is the extent of connectivity and synergistic benefits that exist amongst the different business models?
4	Governance	How does the organization’s governance structure support its ability to create value in the short, medium and long term? What information does the integrated report provide about the organization’s leadership structure including its skills and diversity? What information does the integrated report provide about the organization’s specific processes for strategic decision making, risk management and addressing of ethical and integrity issues? How is the organization’s culture, ethics and values reflected in its use of and effects on the capitals including its relationships with key stakeholders? Are the remuneration and incentives of directors and senior executives linked to value creation and to the organization’s use of capitals in the short, medium and long-term?
5	Risks and opportunities	What are the specific opportunities and risks that affect the organization’s ability to create value over the short, medium and long term? What information does the integrated report provide about the organisation’s key risks which include strategic, supply chain, political, financial, human resource, environmental, information technology and reputation risks? Does the organization identify the specific sources of risks and opportunities, assess the likelihood that the risk or opportunity will come to fruition and determine the magnitude of the effect if it does? What specific action steps does the organization take to mitigate or manage key risks or create value from key opportunities including identifying associated strategic objectives, strategies, policies and KPIs? Does the organization use the guiding principle of materiality in reporting any real risks that are fundamental to the ongoing ability of the organization to create value even if their probability of occurrence may be small?
6	Performance	To what extent has the organization achieved its strategic objectives? What are the organization’s outcomes in terms of effects on the capitals used in the value chain (both positive and negative)? Does the integrated report provide information on outcomes such as customer satisfaction, shareholder return, contribution to taxes, job creation, employee development and engagement, improved living standards, impact on environment and the organization’s license to operate? Does the integrated report discuss the state of key stakeholder relationships and how the organization has responded to meet key stakeholders’ legitimate needs and interests? To what extent does the integrated report combine financial performance with performance regarding other capitals such as human, natural, intellectual, manufactured and social?
7	Outlook	What challenges and uncertainties is the organization likely to encounter in pursuing its strategy? How is the organisation equipped to respond to critical challenges and uncertainties that are likely to arise? What are the potential implications for the organization’s business model and future performance? Does the discussion on potential implications include the effects of the external environment, risks and opportunities on the achievement of strategic objectives? Does the discussion on potential implications include the availability, quality and affordability of capitals and their effect on the organization’s ability to create value over time?
8	Basis of preparation and presentation	How does the organization determine what matters to include in the integrated report and how are such matters quantified or evaluated? Does the integrated report provide a summary of the organization’s materiality determination process and key judgements adopted? How does the integrated report identify its reporting boundary and explain how it is determined? Are material risks, opportunities and outcomes attributable to or associated with other entities or stakeholders included in the integrated report to the extent that they materially affect the ability of the financial reporting entity to create value? Does the integrated report provide a summary of the significant frameworks and methods used to quantify or evaluate material matters included in the report?

Appendix 2: Examples of integrated reporting (〈IR〉) disclosures of listed firms in South Africa

This appendix provides examples of two of the top 〈IR〉 companies that have obtained among the highest IR scores in our evaluation and one company that has obtained among the lowest IR scores in our evaluation.

The first example is Gold Fields Ltd.¹³ Overall, Gold Fields Ltd scored excellently in almost every aspect of our evaluation. Its 2012 integrated report provides a concise account of how the various aspects of the business relate to each other. An overview entitled “Our business,” outlines how the company adds value, its global footprint, details of its restructuring, its vision, values and stakeholder promises, its strategy and, finally, a financial overview. Its table of contents clearly illustrates a high degree of compliance with the eight content elements of 〈IR〉 framework. The section on how the business adds value through its business process is also provided below. Gold Fields attempts to link its specific business process (which encompasses (1) exploration (discovering gold bearing ores around the world), (2) analysis (identifying and modeling extraction opportunities), (3) development (design and construction of mines and infrastructure), (4) mining (physical extraction of gold), (5) processing (physical and chemical processing of ore) and (6) marketing (sale of refined gold)) and value creation. Gold Fields also articulates the state of key stakeholder relationships and how the organization has responded to key stakeholders’ legitimate needs and interests. For example in its stakeholder engagement section, Gold Fields explains the linkages between non-financial performance measures (such as culture and climate rating, lost-time-injury-frequency rate, energy per ounce of gold produced, and years of gold reserves based on current production) and its stakeholders (such as investors, employees, regulators, trade unions, local community and host government). The section on Strategic analysis with the “Strategic performance dashboard” in the stakeholder engagement section provides a comprehensive integration of strategy, shareholder risks, KPI’s, performance and forward-looking information by strategic requirement.

Netcare Ltd is another example of a company that has scored excellently overall and in particular in its risk management section. In its 2012 integrated report, the company articulates that understanding risks is an inextricable part of doing business. Netcare does not attempt to eliminate risk completely but rather provides a structure to continually identify, assess, evaluate and manage risk. Engaging in risk is inherent in all its activities as the company achieves its strategic objectives and increases stakeholder value. The report provides considerable details on the company’s risk management process and the key business risks critical for the sustainability of its southern African operations. The company discusses its plans and processes to mitigate these risks, which is linked to the company’s strategy and value creation.

Capevin Holdings Ltd is an example of a company that has scored poorly in our evaluation. Its 2012 integrated report looks like a traditional annual financial report and very little effort is made to discuss the company’s strategy, business model, stakeholder engagement or other content elements of the IIRC framework. In fact the company stated in its Corporate Governance Statement on Page 5 that it does not consider application of all principles contained within King III to be appropriate as it is a passive investment holding company.

References

Aboody D, Lev B (2000) Information asymmetry, R&D and insider gains. J Finance (6):2747–2766Google Scholar
Arya A, Frimor H, Mittendorf BG (2010) Discretionary disclosure of proprietary information in a multi-segment firm. Manag Sci 56(4):645–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barth M, Kasznik R, McNichols M (2001) Analyst coverage and intangible assets. J Account Res 39:1–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barton J, Waymire G (2004) Investor protection under unregulated financial reporting. J Account Econ 38(1):65–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beyer A, Cohen D, Lys T, Walther B (2010) The financial reporting environment: evidence from the last decade. J Account Econ 50(2):296–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Botosan C (1997) Disclosure level and the cost of equity capital. Account Rev 72(3):323–349Google Scholar
Brown S, Hillegeist S (2007) How disclosure quality affects the level of information asymmetry. Rev Account Stud 12(2):443–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bushman R, Chen Q, Engel E, Smith A (2004) Financial accounting information, organizational complexity and corporate governance systems. J Account Econ 37:167–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chu T, Haw IM, Lee B, Wu W (2014) Cost of equity capital, control divergence, and institutions: the international evidence. Rev Quant Financ Acc 43(3):483–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen L, Lou D (2012) Complicated firms. J Financ Econ 104:383–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coles J, Daniel N, Naveen L (2008) Boards: does one size fit all? J Financ Econ 87:329–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Core J, Holthausen R, Larcker D (1999) Corporate governance, chief executive officer compensation, and firm performance. J Financ Econ 51:371–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dhaliwal D, Khurana I, Pereira R (2011) Firm disclosure policy and the choice between private and public debt. Contemp Account Res 28(1):293–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durnev A, Kim EH (2005) To steal or not to steal: firm attributes, legal environment, and valuation. J Finance 60:1461–1493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ernst, Young (2012) Ernst & Young’s Excellence in Integrated Reporting Awards 2012Google Scholar
Fama E, French K (1992) The cross-section of expected stock returns. J Finance 47:427–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Financial Reporting Council (FRC) (2011) Cutting clutter. Combating clutter in annual reportsGoogle Scholar
Francis JR, Khurana I, Pereira R (2005) disclosure incentives and effects on cost of capital around the World. Account Rev 80(4):1125–1162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frankel R, McNichols M, Wilson P (1995) Discretionary disclosure and external financing. Account Rev 70(1):135–150Google Scholar
Gelb D (2000) Managerial ownership and accounting disclosures: an empirical study. Rev Quant Financ Acc 15(2):169–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habib M, Johnsen DB, Naik N (1997) Spinoffs and information. J Financ Intermed 6(2):153–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Healy PM, Palepu KG (2001) Information asymmetry, corporate disclosure, and the capital markets: a review of the empirical disclosure literature. J Account Econ 31(1–3):405–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) (2013) International Integrated Reporting FrameworkGoogle Scholar
Investor Responsibility Research Centre Institute (2013) Integrated financial and sustainability reporting in the United StatesGoogle Scholar
Jensen MC (1986) Agency costs of free cash flow, corporate finance, and takeovers. Am Econ Rev 76:323–329Google Scholar
KPMG and Financial Executives Research Foundation (2011) Disclosure overload and complexity: hidden in plain sightGoogle Scholar
La Porta R, Lopez-de-Silanes F, Shleifer A (2006) What works in securities laws? J Finance 61:1–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lang M, Lundholm R (1993) Cross-sectional determinants of analyst ratings of corporate disclosures. J Account Res 31(2):246–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lang L, Lundholm R (2000) Voluntary disclosure during equity offerings: reducing information asymmetry or hyping the stock? Contemp Account Res 17(4):623–662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lang L, Stulz R (1994) Tobin’s Q, corporate diversification and firm performance. J Polit Econ 102:1248–1280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larcker D, Rusticus T (2010) On the use of instrumental variables in accounting research. J Account Econ 49:186–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee KW (2007) Corporate voluntary disclosure and the separation of cash flow rights from control rights. Rev Quant Financ Account 28:393–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee KW, Lee CF (2009) Cash holdings, corporate governance structure and firm valuation. Rev Pac Basin Financ Mark Polic 12(3):475–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee KW, Lev B, Yeo HH (2008) Executive pay dispersion, corporate governance and firm performance. Rev Quant Financ Account 30(3):315–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee CF, Lee KW, Yeo HH (2009) Investor protection and convertible debt design. J Bank Finance 33:985–995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linck J, Netter J, Yang T (2008) The determinants of board structure. J Financ Econ 87:308–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maines LA, McDaniel LS (2000) Effects of comprehensive-income characteristics on nonprofessional investors’ judgments: the role of financial statement presentation format. Account Rev 75(2):179–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers S, Majluf NS (1984) Corporate financing and investment decisions when firms have information that investors do not have. J Financ Econ 13:187–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry T, Peyer U (2005) Board seat accumulation by executives: a shareholder’s perspective. Journal of Finance 60:2083–2123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters G, Romi A (2013) Discretionary compliance with mandatory environmental disclosures: evidence from SEC filings. J Account Public Policy 32(4):213–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petersen MA (2009) Estimating standard errors in finance panel data sets: comparing approaches. Rev Financ Stud 22:435–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rajan R, Zingales L (1998) Financial dependence and growth. Am Econ Rev 88:559–586Google Scholar
Sengupta P (1998) Corporate disclosure quality and the cost of debt. Account Rev 73(4):459–474Google Scholar
Sims CA (2006) Rational inattention: beyond the linear-quadratic case. Am Econ Rev 96(2):158–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith C, Watts R (1992) The investment opportunity set and corporate financing, dividend and compensation policies. J Financ Econ 40:263–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stein J (1997) Internal capital markets and the competition for corporate resources. J Finance 52:111–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stock J, Wright J, Yogo M (2002) A survey of weak instruments and weak identification in generalized method of moments. J Bus Econ Stat 20(4):518–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tasker S (1998) Bridging the information gap: quarterly conference calls as a medium form of voluntary disclosures. Rev Account Stud 3:137–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veldkamp L (2006) Information markets and the co-movement of asset prices. Rev Econ Stud 70(3):823–845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verrecchia R (1983) Discretionary disclosure. J Account Econ 5:179–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verrecchia R (1990) Endogenous proprietary costs through firm interdependence. J Account Econ 12:245–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yermack D (1996) Higher market value of companies with a small board of directors. J Financ Econ 40:185–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

Authors and Affiliations

Kin-Wai Lee
- 1
Email author
Gillian Hian-Heng Yeo
- 1

1.S3-B2A-19 Nanyang Avenue, Nanyang Business SchoolNanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore

The association between integrated reporting and firm valuation

Abstract

Keywords

JEL Classification

Notes

Acknowledgments

References

Copyright information

Authors and Affiliations

Personalised recommendations

Cite article