Expectation gap between preparers and stakeholders in integrated reporting

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to explore the emphasis placed on certain integrated reporting themes by financial services companies and stakeholders’ perception of the importance of these themes to ascertain if a perception gap exists. The study also considers if the perception gap is affected by user sophistication. Design/methodology/approach This paper uses a mixed methods approach. First, the integrated reports are analysed to construct interpretively a list of disclosure themes. The frequency of these disclosures themes is determined to give a sense of the emphasis placed on these disclosures by a sample of integrated reporters. Second, a questionnaire is compiled to gauge the perceived importance of the disclosure themes by a proxy group of sophisticated and unsophisticated investors. Third, the results are subject to factor analysis to determine the statistically significant disclosure themes. Differences between the emphasis placed on these disclosures by companies and their perceived importance in the eyes of users are used to outline the nature of a perception gap. Finally, the perceived importance of the integrated reporting themes between the sophisticated and unsophisticated respondents is determined using a Mann–Whitney U test. Findings This paper shows that a perception gap has developed because companies do not fully understand what information is valued by their stakeholders. In addition, this study demonstrates that sophistication has an effect on the type of disclosures which are valued by users and the manner in which the disclosures are presented. Originality/value This research adds a new dimension to prior literature by introducing the idea of a perception gap (well-known in a financial reporting and assurance context) to integrated reporting. It also shows that differences in stakeholders’ sophistication should be taken into account when companies prepare their integrated reports.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 57 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.