Is integrated reporting more value relevant in North America?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study investigates the value relevance of integrated reporting in the North American equity markets. Design/methodology/approach Using a sample of firms in the US and Canada, we compare a treatment group that has adopted integrated reporting with a control group that has not to examine the value relevance of key accounting variables based on models derived from Ohlson’s (1995) residual income valuation framework. Findings We find that investors assign greater value to information presented in integrated reports than traditional, separate financial and nonfinancial disclosures. Furthermore, the value relevance of financial information is significantly higher for firms that have adopted integrated reporting than for those that have not. Practical implications Our evidence supports signaling theory, suggesting that compliance with the International Integrated Reporting Council’s initiative to consolidate diverse disclosures into one comprehensive report enhances the value relevance of information for investors. Social implications These findings have implications for policymakers, corporate managers and investors. As integrated reporting becomes a mainstream financial reporting practice, corporations are likely to become more conscious of the environmental and social impacts of their operations and increasingly incorporate sustainability considerations into their strategic decision-making. Originality/value This study is one of the first attempts to examine the value relevance of integrated reporting in the North American equity markets.
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 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".