Exploring the implications of integrated reporting on organisational reporting practice

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine “how” the adoption of integrated reporting (IR), and the embedded multiple capitals framework, has influenced organisational reporting practice. In particular, the paper examines how companies report and integrate multiple capitals in various organisational reporting channels following the introduction of an “apply or explain” IR requirement in South Africa. Design/methodology/approach Using a qualitative case study approach based on discourse analysis, this paper examines various organisational reports including integrated reports, standalone sustainability reports, websites and other online materials of highly regarded, award-winning, integrated reporters in South Africa over a four-year period (2011-2014), following the introduction of IR requirement. The authors draw five impression management techniques, namely, rhetorical manipulation, thematic manipulation, selectivity, emphasis in visual presentation and performance comparisons to explain disclosure and integration of multiple capitals. Findings The authors find that companies are increasingly conforming to reporting language espoused in existing IR guidelines and multiple capital frameworks over time. For instance, it is found that the research cases have increasingly used specific grammars in existing IR guidelines such as “capitals” and “material” issues, with companies acknowledging the “interdependencies” and “trade-offs” between multiple capitals. Companies have also started to recognise that the capitals are subject to “increases, decreases, and transformations” over time. However, the disclosures are generic, rather than company-specific, and lack substance, often framed in synthetic charming aimed to showcase adoption of IR practice. In addition, the current discourse on multiple capital disclosures is one of the defending, even promoting, organisational reputation, rather than recognising how organisational actions, or inactions, impact multiple capitals. The paper concludes that the emerging IR practice, and the embedded multiple capital framework, has not really improved the substance of organisational reports. Practical implications The results of this study have a number of implications for regulatory authorities, public and private sector organisations as well as academic researchers. For regulatory authorities, the results inform relevant regulatory authorities how IR practice is taking shape over time, particularly within the context of a regulatory setting. Second, the empirical analyses, which focused on highly regarded, award-wining, integrated reporters, draw the attention of regulatory bodies as well as users of corporate reports to concerns related to a growing number of rating agencies of organisational reports. Finally, for academic researchers, the theoretical implications of this study is that, given the pervasive use of multiple impression management techniques in various organisational reports, the authors support the notion that corporate disclosure practices should be examined through the lens of multiple theoretical perspectives to enhance our understanding of the nature of organisational reporting practice. Originality/value This study provides a more focused preliminary empirical account of the implications of IR practice, and the embedded multiple capital frameworks, on the quality of organisational reporting practice following the adoption of mandatory IR requirement in South Africa.