From Share Value to Shared Value: Exploring the Role of Accountants in Developing Integrated Reporting in Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The corporate reporting landscape has evolved in the last 20 years from financial reporting to sustainability reporting to “integrated reporting.” The corporate reporting history abounds with different attempts at integrating sustainability accounting with financial accounting (e.g., the Corporate Report 1975 and the “Triple Bottom Line” concept) and thereby attempting to report in an integrated manner. The first corporate integrated reports appeared in 2002, but the new trend remained in the margins. Since 2010, the IIRC (International Integrated Reporting Council) has led the work on building the first Integrated Reporting (IR) framework, published in December 2013. The accounting profession has played a crucial role in pushing the idea of integrated reporting forward. Now it is looking at how it can best participate in IR corporate practice. This report is aimed at accountants who would like to get involved more closely, or even drive, the IR efforts within their company. We begin with an overview of the origins of IR combined with calls for its development, emphasizing the role of the accounting profession in the development of this new corporate reporting framework. Then we discuss the benefits of IR, centered on the holistic thinking it can foster in companies, enabling them to reconsider sustainability challenges and leveraging a stakeholder-inclusive approach to corporate reporting. We then focus on the involvement of accountants within the implementation of IR. Finally, we elaborate on today’s challenges for IR, which include developing a materiality matrix, designing a project mode for the first IR publication process, designing integrated information systems, and navigating the legal environment surrounding IR. The report is based on participative observation within a leading multinational company—pilot of the IIRC—semi-structured interviews with international experts and other multinational companies on their IR journey, as well as documentary evidence collected from 2011 to 2015.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".