Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 141, Issue 1, pp 191–205 | Cite as

In Pursuit of a ‘Single Source of Truth’: from Threatened Legitimacy to Integrated Reporting

  • Cornelia Beck
  • John Dumay
  • Geoffrey FrostEmail author


This paper explores one organisation’s journey into non-financial reporting, initially motivated by a crisis in public confidence that threatened the organisation’s legitimacy to the present with the organisation embracing integrated reporting. The organisation’s journey is framed through a legitimation lens and is illustrated by aligning internal reflections with external outputs guided by predominant paradigms of good practice, such as the GRI guidelines and more recently integrated reporting 〈IR〉. We find that the organisation’s relationship with external guidelines has evolved from pragmatic adoption as a means of seeking external legitimation to the present position where those that prepare external reports are informed by the organisation’s strategic positioning and not constrained by the promulgation of voluntary guidelines. From the case study, we suggest that the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) may face two hurdles: First, organisations may define social norms based on a broader definition of stakeholders than the definition currently published by the IIRC. The second hurdle is to convince report preparers that adopting integrated reporting 〈IR〉 will positively impact on capital flows.


Non-financial reporting Integrated reporting Legitimacy theory Reporting Case study Australia 



The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support and technical assistance of CPA Australia in the undertaking of this project.


  1. Adams, C. A. (2002). Internal organisational factors influencing corporate social and ethical reporting: Beyond current theorising. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15(2), 223–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams, C. A. (2004). The ethical, social and environmental reporting-performance portrayal gap. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 17(5), 731–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Adams, C. A. (2013). Understanding integrated reporting: The concise guide to integrated thinking and the future of corporate reporting: Dō Sustainability.Google Scholar
  4. Adams, C. A., & Frost, G. R. (2007). Managing social and environmental performance: Do companies have adequate information? Australian Accounting Review, 17(3), 2–11.Google Scholar
  5. Adams, C. A., & Kuasirikun, N. (2000). A comparative analysis of corporate reporting on the ethical issues by UK and German chemical and pharmaceutical companies. The European Accounting Review, 9(1), 53–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Adams, C. A., & Larrinaga-González, C. (2007). Engaging with organisations in pursuit of improved sustainability accounting and performance. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 20(3), 333–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Adams, C. A., & McNicholas, P. (2007). Making a difference: Sustainability reporting, accountability and organisational change. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 20(3), 382–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Adams, S., & Simnett, R. (2011). Integrated reporting: An opportunity for Australia’s not-for-profit sector. Australian Accounting Review, 21(3), 292–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Aerts, W., & Cormier, D. (2009). Media legitimacy and corporate environmental communication. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34(1), 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Aerts, W., Cormier, D., & Magnan, M. (2006). Intra-industry imitation in corporate environmental reporting: An international perspective. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 25(3), 299–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Al-Tuwaijri, S. A., Christensen, T. E., & Hughes, K, I. I. (2004). The relations among environmental disclosure, environmental performance, and economic performance: A simultaneous equations approach. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 29(5), 447–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Beattie, V., & Smith, S. J. (2012). Evaluating disclosure theory using the views of UK finance directors in the intellectual capital context. Accounting and Business Research, 42(5), 471–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Beck, A. C., Campbell, D., & Shrives, P. J. (2010). Content analysis in environmental reporting research: Enrichment and rehearsal of the method in a British–German context. The British Accounting Review, 42(3), 207–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Beets, S. D., & Souther, C. C. (1999). Corporate environmental reports: The need for standards and an environmental assurance service. Accounting Horizons, 13(2), 129–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Boiral, O. (2013). Sustainability reports as simulacra? A counter-account of A and A 1 GRI reports. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 26(7), 1036–1071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bouma, J. J., & Kamp-Roelands, N. (2000). Stakeholders’ expectations of an environmental management system: Some exploratory research. European Accounting Review, 9(1), 131–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Brown, H. S., de Jong, M., & Levy, D. L. (2009). Building institutions based on information disclosure: Lessons from GRI’s sustainability reporting. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17, 571–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Brown, N., & Deegan, C. (1998). The public disclosure of environmental performance information—A dual test of media agenda setting theory and legitimacy theory. Accounting and Business Research, 29(1), 21–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Buhr, N. (1998). Environmental performance, legislation and annual report disclosure: The case of acid rain and Falconbridge. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 11(2), 163–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Campbell, D. J. (2000). Legitimacy theory or managerial reality construction? Corporate social disclosure in Marks and Spencer Plc corporate reports, 1969–1997. Accounting Forum, 24(1), 80–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Campbell, D. J., & Beck, C. (2004). Answering allegations: The use of the corporate website for restorative ethical and social disclosure. Business Ethics: A European Review, 13(2–3), 100–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Chapman, R., & Milne, M. J. (2004). The triple bottom line: How New Zealand companies measure up. Corporate Environmental Strategy: International Journal for Sustainable Business, 11(2), 2–37.Google Scholar
  23. Cho, C. H., & Patten, D. M. (2007). The role of environmental disclosures as tools of legitimacy: A research note. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 32(7), 639–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Chua, W. F. (2006). Extended performance reporting: A review of empirical studies. Sydney: The Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia.Google Scholar
  25. Clarkson, P. M., Overell, M. B., & Chapple, L. (2011). Environmental reporting and its relation to corporate environmental performance. Abacus, 47(1), 27–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Cormier, D., Gordon, I. M., & Magnan, M. (2004). Corporate environmental disclosure: Contrasting management’s perceptions with reality. Journal of Business Ethics, 49(2), 143–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Cormier, D., & Magnan, M. (1999). Corporate environmental disclosure strategies: Determinants, costs and benefits. Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance, 14(4), 429–451.Google Scholar
  28. Cormier, D., Magnan, M., & Van Velthoven, B. (2005). Environmental disclosure quality in large German companies: Economic incentives, public pressures or institutional conditions? European Accounting Review, 14(1), 3–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Davis-Walling, P., & Batterman, S. A. (1997). Environmental reporting by the Fortune 50 firms. Environmental Management, 21(6), 865–875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Deegan, C., & Blomquist, C. (2006). Stakeholder influence on corporate reporting: An exploration of the interaction between WWF-Australia and the Australian minerals industry. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 31(4), 343–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Deegan, C., & Rankin, M. (1996). Do Australian companies report environmental news objectively? An analysis of environmental disclosures by firms prosecuted successfully by the Environmental Protection Authority. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 9(2), 50–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Deegan, C., Rankin, M., & Tobin, J. (2002). An examination of the corporate social and environmental disclosures of BHP from 1983–1997. A test of legitimacy theory. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15(3), 312–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Dierkes, M. (1979). Corporate social reporting in Germany: Conceptual developments and practical experience. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 4(1/2), 87–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Dobkowski-Joy, A., & Brockland, B. (2013). The state of integrated reporting: Innovation and experimentation in the merging of ESG and financial disclosure. Stamford, CT: Framework LLC.Google Scholar
  35. Dowling, J., & Pfeffer, J. (1975). Organizational legitimacy: Social values and organizational behaviour. Pacific Sociological Review, 18, 122–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Dumay, J., Guthrie, J., & Farneti, F. (2010). GRI sustainability reporting guidelines for public and third sector organisations: A critical review. Public Management Review, 13(4), 531–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Farneti, F., & Guthrie, J. (2009). Sustainability reporting by Australian public sector organisations: Why they report? Accounting Forum, 33(1), 89–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Freedman, M., & Wasley, C. (1990). The association between environmental performance and environmental disclosure in annual reports and 10Ks. Advances in Public Interest Accounting, 3, 183–193.Google Scholar
  39. Frost, G. R. (2007). The introduction of mandatory environmental reporting guidelines: Australian evidence. Abacus, 43(2), 190–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Frost, G., Jones, S., Loftus, J., & van der Laan, S. (2005). A survey of sustainability reporting practices of Australian reporting entities. Australian Accounting Review, 15(35), 89–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Frost, G. R., & Seamer, M. (2002). Adoption of environmental reporting and management practices: An analysis of New South Wales public sector entities. Financial Accountability & Management, 18(2), 103–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Gray, R. (2005). Taking a long view on what we now know about social and environmental accountability and reporting. Electronical Journal of Radical Organisation Theory, 9(1), 6.Google Scholar
  43. Gray, R. (2010). Is accounting for sustainability actually accounting for sustainability…and how would we know? An exploration of narratives of organisations and the planet. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35(1), 47–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Guthrie, J., & Parker, L. D. (1989). Corporate social reporting: A rebuttal of legitimacy theory. Accounting and Business Research, 19(76), 343–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hahn, R., & Kühnen, M. (2013). Determinants of sustainability reporting: A review of results, trends, theory, and opportunities in an expanding field of research. Journal of Cleaner Production, 59, 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Hogner, R. H. (1982). Corporate social reporting: Eight decades of development at US Steel. Research in Corporate Performance and Policy, 4, 243–250.Google Scholar
  47. International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC). (2011). Towards integrated reporting: Communicating value in the 21st century. London: International Integrated Reporting Council.Google Scholar
  48. International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC). (2013, December 8). The international (IR) framework. London: International Integrated Reporting Council.Google Scholar
  49. Jensen, J. C., & Berg, N. (2012). Determinants of traditional sustainability reporting versus integrated reporting. An institutionalist approach. Business Strategy and the Environment, 21(5), 299–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Joseph, G. (2012). Ambiguous but tethered: An accounting basis for sustainability reporting. Critical perspectives on Accounting, 23(2), 93–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kolk, A. (2005). Corporate social responsibility in the coffee sector: The dynamics of MNC responses and code development. European Management Journal, 23(2), 228–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. KPMG. (2011). The KPMG survey of corporate social responsibility reporting. London: KPMG.Google Scholar
  53. KPMG. (2013). The KPMG survey of corporate responsibility reporting 2013. Amstelveen: KPMG International.Google Scholar
  54. Krzus, M. P. (2011). Integrated Reporting: If not now, when? Zeitschrift für Internationale Rechnungslegung, 6(June), 271–276.Google Scholar
  55. Levy, D. L., Brown, H. S., & de Jong, M. (2010). The contested politics of corporate governance: The case of the global reporting initiative. Business and Society, 49(1), 88–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Manetti, G., & Toccafondi, S. (2012). The role of stakeholders in sustainability reporting assurance. Journal of Business Ethics, 107(3), 363–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Moneva, J. M., Archel, P., & Correa, C. (2006). GRI and the camouflaging of corporate unsustainability. Accounting Forum, 30(2), 121–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Neu, D., Warsame, H., & Pedwell, K. (1998). Managing public impressions: Environmental disclosures in annual reports. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 23(3), 265–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. O’Dwyer, B., & Owen, D. (2005). Assurance statement practice in environmental, social and sustainability reporting: a critical evaluation. The British Accounting Review, 37, 205–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. O’Dwyer, B., & Unerman, J. (2008). The paradox of greater NGO accountability: A case study of Amnesty Ireland. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33(7–8), 801–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. O’Dwyer, B., Unerman, J., & Hession, E. (2005). User needs in sustainability reporting: Perspectives of stakeholders in Ireland. European Accounting Review, 14(4), 759–787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Parent, M., & Deephouse, D. (2007). A case study of stakeholder identification and prioritization by managers. Journal of Business Ethics, 75(1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Parker, L. D. (2005). Social and environmental accounting research. A view from the commentary box. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 18(6), 824–860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Patten, D. M., & Crampton, W. (2003). Legitimacy and the internet: An examination of corporate web page environmental disclosures. Advances in Environmental Accounting & Management, 2, 31–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Pfarrer, M. D., Decelles, K. A., Smith, K. G., & Taylor, M. S. (2008). After the fall: Reintegrating the corrupt organization. Academy of Management Review, 39(3), 730–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in organizations. Marshfield: Pitman.Google Scholar
  67. Raar, J. (2007). Reported social and environmental taxonomies: A longer-term glimpse. Managerial Auditing Journal, 22(8), 840–860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Rockness, J. W. (1985). An assessment of the relationship between US corporate environmental performance and disclosure. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 12(3), 339–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Scott, W. R. (1977). Effectivenses of organizational effectiveness studies. In P. S. Goodman & J. M. Pennings (Eds.), New perspectives on organizational effectiveness (pp. 63–95). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  70. Skouloudis, A., Evangelinos, K., & Kourmousis, F. (2010). Assessing non-financial reports according to the Global Reporting Initiative guidelines: Evidence from Greece. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(5), 426–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Solomon, J., & Maroun, W. (2012). Integrated reporting: The influence of King III on social, ethical and environmental reporting. London: Association of Chartered Certified Accountants.Google Scholar
  72. Spence, C. (2007). Social and environmental reporting and hegemonic discourse. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 20(6), 855–882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Spence, C. (2009). Social and environmental reporting and the corporate ego. Business Strategy and the Environment, 18(4), 254–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.Google Scholar
  75. Tilt, C. A. (1994). The influence of external pressure groups on corporate social disclosure: Some empirical evidence. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 7(4), 47–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Tort, L. E. (2010). GRI reporting in government agencies. Amsterdam: Global Reporting Initiative.Google Scholar
  77. Unerman, J. (2000). Reflections on quantification in corporate social reporting content analysis. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 13(5), 667–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Wagner, M. (2009). Innovation and competitive advantages from the integration of strategic aspects with social and environmental management in European firms. Business Strategy and the Environment, 18(5), 291–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Wilmshurst, T. D., & Frost, G. R. (2000). Corporate environmental reporting: A test of legitimacy theory. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 13(1), 10–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Wiseman, J. (1982). An evaluation of environmental disclosures made in corporate annual reports. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 7(1), 53–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. ZETA. (2004). Corporate social responsibility report.Google Scholar
  82. ZETA. (2005). CSR report.Google Scholar
  83. ZETA. (2012). Annual review.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The University of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations