Integrated Thinking and Reporting Process: Sensemaking of Internal Actors in the Case of Itaú Unibanco
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to understand the meaning created by Itaú Unibanco’s internal actors in the Integrated Reporting (IR) processes. An interpretative approach based on Karl Weick’s sensemaking perspective is adopted. A case study methodology was adopted for undertaking the empirical work. The results show that IR identity in the institution is related to three issues: synergy processes between sectors; integration for the production of other reports; and development of an integrated thinking chain for the entire business. We present perceptions on benefits and difficulties in the process of preparing the integrated report. Although the practices and processes established did not change the characteristics of the bank, the perspective of the social actors seems to have changed from a sectoral view to a multidimensional view. In addition, the conclusions suggest that it is not difficult to understand that separating ‘thinking’ from ‘doing’, attributing to the individual the role of mere operationalization is tantamount to ignore the meaning attributed to the organization’s journey towards the creation of a process, namely the IR one. The study’s contribution lies in pointing out that the IR process is directly related to the integrated thinking process. This could be the most significant differential of IR as a form of corporate communication as it amounts to a new reporting framework that proposes integrating social, environmental, and governance disclosures (non-financial information) with financial disclosures in a single report.
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it