Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Institutional Determinants of IR Disclosure Quality

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Integrated Reporting

Abstract

The aim of this chapter is to study whether and how the institutional context where a company operates influences Integrated Reporting (IR) disclosure quality, as measured through a unique hand-collected dataset. Our results show strong empirical support for the hypothesis that a country’s institutional characteristics significantly shape IR disclosure quality. In particular, we find that disclosure quality is higher in civil law countries and in countries with higher employee protection, levels of market coordination, ownership concentration, education, density of trade unions, corporate social responsibility and economic development. Conversely, the higher the investor protection, the lower the IR disclosure quality. These results allow us to draw new insights on the nature of IR and its relationship with institutional contexts.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • AccountAbility. 2005. The accountability rating. London: AccountAbility.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amran, A., and R. Haniffa. 2011. Evidence in development of sustainability reporting: Case of a developing country. Business Strategy and the Environment 20: 141–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brammer, S., and S. Pavelin. 2006. Voluntary environmental disclosure by large UK companies. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting 33: 1168–1188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brammer, S., G. Jackson, and D. Matten. 2012. Corporate social responsibility and institutional theory: New perspectives on private governance. Socio-Economic Review 10: 3–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buhr, N., and M. Freedman. 2001. Culture, institutional factors and differences in environmental disclosure between Canada and the United States. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 12: 293–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, S., and P. Bouvain. 2009. Is corporate responsibility converging? A comparison of corporate responsibility reporting in the USA, UK, Australia and Germany. Journal of Business Ethics 87: 299–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson, P.M., Y. Li, G.D. Richardson, and S.P. Vasvari. 2008. Revisiting the relation between environmental performance and environmental disclosure: An empirical analysis. Accounting, Organizations and Society 33: 303–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cormier, D., and M. Magnan. 2003. Environmental reporting management: A continental European perspective. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 22: 43–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Da Silva Monteiro, S.M., and B. Aibar-Guzman. 2010. Determinants of environmental disclosure in the annual reports of large companies operating in Portugal. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 17: 185–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dimaggio, P.J., and W.W. Powell. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review 48: 147–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dong, M., and A. Stettler. 2011. Estimating firm-level and country-level effects in cross-sectional analyses: An application of hierarchical modeling in corporate disclosure studies. The International Journal of Accounting 46: 271–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fortanier, F., A. Kolk, and J. Pinske. 2011. Harmonization in CSR reporting: MNEs and global CSR standards. Management International Review 51: 665–696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frias-Aceituno, J.V., L. Rodriguez-Ariza, and I.M. Garcia-Sanchez. 2013a. The role of the board in the dissemination of integrated corporate social reporting. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 20: 219–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2013b. Is integrated reporting determined by a country’s legal system? An exploratory study. Journal of Cleaner Production 44: 45–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2014. Explanatory factors of integrated sustainability and financial reporting. Business Strategy and the Environment 23: 56–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallo, P.J., and L. Jones Christensen. 2011. Firm size matters: An empirical investigation of organizational size and ownership on sustainability-related behaviors. Business & Society 50: 315–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gamerschalg, R., K. Moller, and F. Veerbeten. 2011. Determinants of voluntary CSR disclosure: Empirical evidence from Germany. Review of Managerial Science 5: 233–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia-Sanchez, I.M., L. Rodriguez-Ariza, and J.V. Frias-Aceituno. 2013. The cultural system and integrated reporting. International Business Review 22: 828–838.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haddock, J. 2005. Consumer influence on Internet-based corporate communication of environmental activities: The UK food sector. British Food Journal 107: 792–805.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, R., and M. Kuhnen. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haniffa, R., and T.E. Cooke. 2005. The impact of culture and governance on corporate social reporting. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 24: 391–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heritage Foundation. 2010. 2008 index of economic freedom. http://www.heritage.org/index/

  • IFC, World Bank. 2011. Protecting investors. http://www.doingbusiness.org/data/exploretopics/protecting-investors#

    Google Scholar 

  • Islam, M.A., and C. Deegan. 2008. Motivations for an organization within a developing country to report social responsibility information: Evidence from Bangladesh. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 21: 850–874.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, G., and A. Apostolakou. 2010. Corporate social responsibility in Western Europe: An institutional mirror or substitute? Journal of Business Ethics 94: 371–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, J.C., and N. Berg. 2012. Determinants of traditional sustainability reporting versus integrated reporting. An institutionalist approach. Business Strategy and the Environment 21: 299–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kent, P., and R. Monem. 2008. What drives TBL reporting: Good governance or threat of legitimacy? Australian Accounting Review 18: 297–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • La Porta, R., F. Lopez-de-Silanes, A. Shleifer, and R. Vishny. 1997. Legal determinants of external finance. Journal of Finance 52: 1131–1150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • La Porta, R.F., F. Lopez-de-Silanes, A. Shleifer, and R.W. Vishny. 1998. Law and finance. Journal of Political Economy 106: 1113–1155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lai, A., G. Melloni, and R. Stacchezzini. 2014. Corporate sustainable development: Is integrated reporting a legitimation strategy? Business Strategy and the Environment. doi:10.1002/bse.1863.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matten, D., and J. Moon. 2008. “Implicit” and “explicit” CSR: A conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review 33(2): 404–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neumayer, E., and R. Perkins. 2004. What explains the uneven take-up of ISO 14001 at the global level? A panel-data analysis. Environment and Planning 36: 823–839.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nikolaeva, R., and M. Bicho. 2011. The role of institutional and reputational factors in the voluntary adoption of corporate social responsibility reporting standards. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 39: 136–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. 2010. OECD indicators of employment protection 2008. http://www.oecd.org/document/11/0,3746,en_2649_37457_42695243_1_1_1_37457,00.html

  • Parsa, S., and R. Kouhy. 2008. Social reporting by companies listed on the alternative investment market. Journal of Business Ethics 79: 345–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prado-Lorenzo, J.M., L. Rodriguez-Dominguez, I. Gallego-Alvarez, and I.M. Garcia-Sanchez. 2009. Factors influencing the disclosure of greenhouse gas emissions in companies world-wide. Management Decision 47: 1133–1157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sierra-Garcia, L., A. Zorio-Grima, and M. Garcia-Benau. 2013. Stakeholder engagement, corporate social responsibility and integrated reporting: An exploratory study. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. doi:10.1002/csr.1345.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sotorrio, L.L., and J.L.F. Sanchez. 2010. Corporate social reporting for different audiences: The case of multinational corporations in Spain. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 17: 272–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tagesson, T., V. Blank, P. Broberg, and S.-O. Collin. 2009. What explains the extent and content of social and environmental disclosures on corporate websites: A study of social and environmental reporting in Swedish listed corporations. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 16: 352–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS). 2010. Global education digest 2010: Comparing education statistics across the world. Montreal: UIS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vormedal, I., and A. Ruud. 2009. Sustainability reporting in Norway: An assessment of performance in the context of legal demands and socio-political drivers. Business Strategy and the Environment 18: 207–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Bank. 2010. Key development data and statistics. http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/DATASTATISTIC/0,,contentMDK:20535285~menuPK:64909264~pagePK:64909151~piPK:64909148~theSitePK:6950074~isCURL:Y,00.html

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management, Ca’ Foscari University of Venice, Venice, Italy

    Marco Fasan, Carlo Marcon & Chiara Mio

Authors
  1. Marco Fasan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Carlo Marcon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Chiara Mio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Ca’ Foscari University, Venice, Italy

    Chiara Mio

Copyright information

© 2016 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Fasan, M., Marcon, C., Mio, C. (2016). Institutional Determinants of IR Disclosure Quality. In: Mio, C. (eds) Integrated Reporting. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-55149-8_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-55149-8_10

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-137-55148-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-137-55149-8

  • eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation