自愿采用国际综合报告框架是向可持续发展道路迈出的一步吗?对资本市场是否重要?

P. Hsiao, C. de Villiers, Thomas P. Scott
{"title":"自愿采用国际综合报告框架是向可持续发展道路迈出的一步吗?对资本市场是否重要?","authors":"P. Hsiao, C. de Villiers, Thomas P. Scott","doi":"10.1108/MEDAR-08-2020-0978","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose – To examine the type of firms that voluntarily adopt the International Integrated Reporting Framework (IIRF) and how markets respond to voluntary IIRF adherence. \n \nDesign/methodology/approach – Analysis of a matched global sample of listed firms that voluntarily adopt the IIRF (IIRF firms) and those that do not (non-IIRF firms). The samples range from 188 to 436 observations as alternative research designs, different matched samples and regression specifications, and several sensitivity analyses were conducted. \n \nFindings – In markets where integrated reporting (IR) is not mainstream, voluntary IIRF adoption is more likely for firms with established sustainability practices. Such findings suggest that the IIRF is an incremental innovation for sustainability rather than an innovation that radically changes management and reporting practices. In Japan, where IR is mainstream, results show no observable differences between IIRF firms and non-IIRF firms. Consistent with the determinants results, we find no evidence of associations between voluntary IIRF adoption and the information environment, the cost of equity or firm value. However, additional analysis provides preliminary evidence suggesting capital market effects may differ for IIRF firms with higher sustainability or market performance. \n \nPractical implications - This study offers useful insights into the current global debate on whether there is value in adopting the IIRF. \n \nOriginality – This study adds to the limited body of research on the determinants and consequences of voluntary IIRF adoption, offering insights for regulators, practitioners and proponents of IR. This study is the first to provide quantitative evidence of the influence sustainability practices have on voluntary IIRF adoption. Further, the results add to the current global debate on whether there is value in adopting the IIRF. We find that voluntary IIRF adoption has no clear and distinct influence on disclosure practices and capital markets, suggesting there are no additional benefits from prioritising the promotion or adoption of the IIRF over other disclosure forms. Unless there are advancements supporting the implementation of integrated thinking and information connectivity, the potential for the IIRF to improve information quality may be limited to encouraging more non-financial disclosure and transparency in countries where integrated disclosures are not trending.","PeriodicalId":175326,"journal":{"name":"PSN: Sustainable Development (Topic)","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"19","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is Voluntary International Integrated Reporting Framework Adoption a Step on the Sustainability Road, and Does Adoption Matter to Capital Markets?\",\"authors\":\"P. Hsiao, C. de Villiers, Thomas P. Scott\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/MEDAR-08-2020-0978\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Purpose – To examine the type of firms that voluntarily adopt the International Integrated Reporting Framework (IIRF) and how markets respond to voluntary IIRF adherence. \\n \\nDesign/methodology/approach – Analysis of a matched global sample of listed firms that voluntarily adopt the IIRF (IIRF firms) and those that do not (non-IIRF firms). The samples range from 188 to 436 observations as alternative research designs, different matched samples and regression specifications, and several sensitivity analyses were conducted. \\n \\nFindings – In markets where integrated reporting (IR) is not mainstream, voluntary IIRF adoption is more likely for firms with established sustainability practices. Such findings suggest that the IIRF is an incremental innovation for sustainability rather than an innovation that radically changes management and reporting practices. In Japan, where IR is mainstream, results show no observable differences between IIRF firms and non-IIRF firms. Consistent with the determinants results, we find no evidence of associations between voluntary IIRF adoption and the information environment, the cost of equity or firm value. However, additional analysis provides preliminary evidence suggesting capital market effects may differ for IIRF firms with higher sustainability or market performance. \\n \\nPractical implications - This study offers useful insights into the current global debate on whether there is value in adopting the IIRF. \\n \\nOriginality – This study adds to the limited body of research on the determinants and consequences of voluntary IIRF adoption, offering insights for regulators, practitioners and proponents of IR. This study is the first to provide quantitative evidence of the influence sustainability practices have on voluntary IIRF adoption. Further, the results add to the current global debate on whether there is value in adopting the IIRF. We find that voluntary IIRF adoption has no clear and distinct influence on disclosure practices and capital markets, suggesting there are no additional benefits from prioritising the promotion or adoption of the IIRF over other disclosure forms. Unless there are advancements supporting the implementation of integrated thinking and information connectivity, the potential for the IIRF to improve information quality may be limited to encouraging more non-financial disclosure and transparency in countries where integrated disclosures are not trending.\",\"PeriodicalId\":175326,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PSN: Sustainable Development (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-06-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"19\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PSN: Sustainable Development (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-08-2020-0978\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PSN: Sustainable Development (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-08-2020-0978","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 19

摘要

目的-研究自愿采用国际综合报告框架(IIRF)的公司类型以及市场对自愿遵守IIRF的反应。设计/方法/方法-对自愿采用IIRF的上市公司(IIRF公司)和不采用IIRF的上市公司(非IIRF公司)的匹配全球样本进行分析。作为备选研究设计、不同匹配样本和回归规范以及若干敏感性分析,样本范围从188到436个观测值不等。在综合报告(IR)尚未成为主流的市场中,已建立可持续发展实践的公司更有可能自愿采用IIRF。这些发现表明,IIRF是促进可持续性的渐进式创新,而不是从根本上改变管理和报告实践的创新。在以IR为主流的日本,结果显示在IIRF公司和非IIRF公司之间没有明显的差异。与决定因素的结果一致,我们没有发现自愿采用IIRF与信息环境、股权成本或公司价值之间存在关联的证据。然而,额外的分析提供了初步证据,表明资本市场效应可能对具有更高可持续性或市场绩效的IIRF公司有所不同。实际意义-本研究为当前关于采用IIRF是否有价值的全球辩论提供了有用的见解。原创性——本研究补充了关于自愿采用IIRF的决定因素和后果的有限研究,为监管机构、从业者和IIRF支持者提供了见解。这项研究首次提供了量化证据,证明可持续性实践对自愿采用IIRF的影响。此外,这些结果加剧了目前全球关于采用IIRF是否有价值的辩论。我们发现,自愿采用IIRF对披露实践和资本市场没有明显的影响,这表明优先推广或采用IIRF而不是其他披露形式并没有额外的好处。除非在支持实施整合思维和信息互联互通方面取得进展,否则在整合披露尚未成为趋势的国家,IIRF提高信息质量的潜力可能仅限于鼓励更多的非财务披露和透明度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Is Voluntary International Integrated Reporting Framework Adoption a Step on the Sustainability Road, and Does Adoption Matter to Capital Markets?
Purpose – To examine the type of firms that voluntarily adopt the International Integrated Reporting Framework (IIRF) and how markets respond to voluntary IIRF adherence. Design/methodology/approach – Analysis of a matched global sample of listed firms that voluntarily adopt the IIRF (IIRF firms) and those that do not (non-IIRF firms). The samples range from 188 to 436 observations as alternative research designs, different matched samples and regression specifications, and several sensitivity analyses were conducted. Findings – In markets where integrated reporting (IR) is not mainstream, voluntary IIRF adoption is more likely for firms with established sustainability practices. Such findings suggest that the IIRF is an incremental innovation for sustainability rather than an innovation that radically changes management and reporting practices. In Japan, where IR is mainstream, results show no observable differences between IIRF firms and non-IIRF firms. Consistent with the determinants results, we find no evidence of associations between voluntary IIRF adoption and the information environment, the cost of equity or firm value. However, additional analysis provides preliminary evidence suggesting capital market effects may differ for IIRF firms with higher sustainability or market performance. Practical implications - This study offers useful insights into the current global debate on whether there is value in adopting the IIRF. Originality – This study adds to the limited body of research on the determinants and consequences of voluntary IIRF adoption, offering insights for regulators, practitioners and proponents of IR. This study is the first to provide quantitative evidence of the influence sustainability practices have on voluntary IIRF adoption. Further, the results add to the current global debate on whether there is value in adopting the IIRF. We find that voluntary IIRF adoption has no clear and distinct influence on disclosure practices and capital markets, suggesting there are no additional benefits from prioritising the promotion or adoption of the IIRF over other disclosure forms. Unless there are advancements supporting the implementation of integrated thinking and information connectivity, the potential for the IIRF to improve information quality may be limited to encouraging more non-financial disclosure and transparency in countries where integrated disclosures are not trending.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信