Skip to main content
Log in

Integrated reporting: boon or bane? A review of empirical research on its determinants and implications

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Business Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Integrated Reporting (IR) is a fairly new form of corporate reporting that is believed to hold promises for both financial and sustainability reporting. IR goes beyond a mere change in information disclosures and has the potential to influence internal communication processes, strategic considerations and, as a result, decision-making. The simultaneous portrayal of sustainability concerns alongside financial considerations might lead to socially and ecologically advantageous company decisions. A thorough understanding of those factors that potentially mediate the relationship between integrated reporting on one side, and company performance on the other, allows for conclusions on whether integrated reporting substantially affects the way in which companies deal with sustainability issues. To address this question, this article provides a structured review of empirical studies on the implications of integrated reporting within as well as outside of the organization. We reviewed evidence from 32 studies suggesting that integrated reporting has some positive implications, such as an improvement in data quantity and quality as well as an improved collaboration on sustainability issues within the firm. In contrast, our review provided inconclusive results on whether IR advances sustainability performance. We discuss these findings and offer avenues for further research in the field.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The terms ‘ESG information’ and ‘non-financial information’ are used interchangeably in this review. When referring to ‘sustainability’ this concerns the social and environmental only, the financial dimension of corporate performance is discussed separately.

  2. Strategic focus and future orientation, connectivity of information, stakeholder relationships, materiality, conciseness, reliability and completeness, consistency and comparability.

  3. Organizational overview and external environment, Governance, Business model, Risks and opportunities, Strategy and resource allocation, Performance, Outlook, Basis of preparation and presentation (Determinants of what to include, methods and frameworks used).

  4. Financial capital are available funds, manufactured capital expresses the manufactured physical objects of the reporting organization (i.e. buildings, equipment, infrastructure), intellectual capital refers to knowledge-based intangibles (i.e. intellectual property), human capital illustrates employee’s capabilities, competencies and experience, social and relationship capital the relationships between and within communities, groups of stakeholders and other networks, and natural capital embraces all affected environmental resources and processes (i.e. air, land, minerals, biodiversity) (IIRC and SASB 2013).

  5. The US SEC as well as the European Commission started investigating policy approaches to mandatory ESG disclosure around 2009. The Grenelle II Act in France passed in 2012 represents an advanced national regulation, which extends the reporting on social and environmental impacts to businesses in CO2-intensive industries with more than 500 employees. Similarly, Denmark required about 1100 of their largest businesses to report on CSR issues in their annual report as of 2008.

  6. In this approach the reporting principles have to be adopted, otherwise reasons for its omittance have to be provided (The South African Institute of Chartered Accountants 2012).

  7. These MoUs are supposed to diminish duplication and demonstrate reciprocity between standards as well as a commitment to IR without colonizing existing reporting approaches (Humphrey et al. 2014).

  8. Power distance indicates the acceptance of unequal power distribution by less powerful members. Uncertainty avoidance describes societal members are (un)comfortable with uncertainty, whereas long- vs. short-term orientation expresses the encouragement of societal change or a preference for time-honoured traditions.

  9. Collectivist countries include Indonesia, China or Mexico; Individualistic countries are Germany, the U.S. or Australia.

  10. Masculine countries are Japan, Hungary and Mexico; Feminist countries include Sweden, Chile or South Korea.

  11. The score is based on an international assessment of the state of corporate responsibility by Account Ability, the Environmental Performance Index (EPI) by Yale University and Human Development Index (HDI) by the UNDP.

  12. See Arguelles et al. (2015), Frías-Aceituno et al. (2013b), Frias-Aceituno et al. (2014), García-Sánchez et al. (2013) and Sierra-García et al. (2015).

  13. Jensen and Meckling (1976) define agency costs as (1) the monitoring expenditures by the principal, such as through the control of budget restrictions, compensation policies or operating rules, (2) the bonding expenditures by the agent and (3) the residual loss as dollar equivalent of the divergence between the welfare reduction of the principal and the agent’s decisions.

  14. Is expressed by the disparity of characteristics of its members, i.e. presence of foreigners, gender diversity.

  15. The percentage of non-executive directors on the board is used as a proxy variable.

  16. SAP’s Integrated Performance Analysis is a prominent example for such a depiction of cause-and-effect relationships, i.e. that a one percent reduction in GHG emissions would have a positive impact of 4 million € on operating profit (SAP 2016).

  17. The IIRC and their communications service provider Black Sun Plc received 66 valid questionnaires and conducted 29 subsequent telephone interviews to gather more detailed information about the surveyed responses.

  18. E.g., Günther et al. (2016) identified GHG politics acting as moderators of the relationship between the carbon disclosure and carbon performance. They further found that other stakeholders, such as media, employees, and customers appear to be directly related to the carbon disclosure score.

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Philipp Schreck.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kannenberg, L., Schreck, P. Integrated reporting: boon or bane? A review of empirical research on its determinants and implications. J Bus Econ 89, 515–567 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-018-0922-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-018-0922-8

Keywords

JEL Classification

Navigation