The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/2049-372X.htm

Integrated
A closer look at integrated reporting reporting
quality: a systematic review and quality

agenda of future research

Ika Permatasari
Department of Accounting, Fakultas Ekonomi dan Bisnis, Universitas Airlangga,
Surabaya, Indonesia and Department of Accounting, Universitas Negeri Surabaya, Received 28 August 2022
Revised 22 January 2023
Surabaya, Indonesia, and 21 April 2023
30 May 2023
Bambang Tjahjadi Accepted 3 June 2023

Department of Accounting, Faculty of Economic and Business, Airlangga

University, Surabaya, Indonesia

Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to conduct a systematic review of the literature on the quality of integrated
reports (IR) and highlight the gaps in the existing research to provide directions and suggestions for future
research.
Design/methodology/approach – This study was conducted through a systematic literature review
using content analysis based on 40 papers from the Scopus, Web of Science and EBSCOhost databases on IR
quality. While reading the full-text papers, the authors found six additional papers referenced by the literature
being reviewed that were relevant to IR quality. Thus, there were 46 papers in the final review. The analysis
begins with the definition and dimension of IR quality and theoretical lenses. Furthermore, this study outlines
constructs or variables used in the previous literature.
Findings – The authors found that most studies used the quantitative method (41 papers or 89%). Five
papers in the literature used qualitative methods (11%). Most researchers (34 papers or 72%) defined IR
quality as consistent with the International Integrated Reporting Council framework, specifically the eight
content elements. In particular, with the constructs that make up the quality of the IR, variations between
researchers were found. Furthermore, there were some gaps that could be the directions for future
research.
Research limitations/implications – The literature that provides academic knowledge about IR
quality is still limited, and research on IR is still growing. The literature review conducted by this study can
provide an overview of the current research positions on the quality of IR and directions for future research in
this area.
Practical implications – This study intends to show corporate executives a framework demonstrating
the quality of corporate reporting. It can impact not only investors as a specific stakeholder group but also
other stakeholder groups.
Originality/value – To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first literature review to
examine the quality of IR, thus providing a map of current research to suggest directions for future research.
Most of the previous literature reviews have been focused on integrated reporting (IR) in general and not
quality.
Keywords Systematic literature review, Integrated reporting, Integrated reporting quality,
Sustainability, Corporate governance, SDGs
Paper type Literature review

Meditari Accountancy Research

This study was not funded by any party. The authors acknowledge the tremendous contributions © Emerald Publishing Limited
2049-372X
made to this work by all of the anonymous reviewers and editors. DOI 10.1108/MEDAR-08-2022-1782
MEDAR 1. Introduction
The practice of integrated reporting (IR) has received much attention during much of the past
decade, but the quality aspect of IR is still a critical point because research on this subject is still
inadequate (de Villiers et al., 2017; Liu et al., 2019; Chouaibi and Hichri, 2021). This study aims
to map and review the existing studies to assess the extensive and in-depth literature in this
area and to find the gaps as opportunities for future research. It is well-known that IR
represents the evolution of providing social, environmental and economic information in
concise and distinct formats that reveal interrelated and future-oriented information. Successful
implementation of IR depends on changing the mindset of managers to optimize the company’s
resources in creating value, limited to not only investors but also other stakeholder groups. In
addition, IR also changes the mindset of managers to disclose long-term-oriented information.
In her paper, Adams (2015) emphasized that professional accounting bodies provide surprising
support for IR, giving rise to many research opportunities in this area.
There have been many studies that have reviewed the IR literature. Among them, de Villiers
et al. (2014) synthesized developing IR research intending to propose a comprehensive agenda
for future IR research. Their work benefits IR researchers to gain a solid foundation in IR and
research opportunities in this area. However, the synthesis refers to the existing literature in the
early stages of IR development, so there is still much room for further research and review.
Similarly, Dumay et al. (2016) conducted a literature review on IR to describe the development
of IR research, criticize existing research and describe future research opportunities. They
emphasized that few studies investigate IR practices and that the majority of IR research gives
normative reasons for IR. Furthermore, Dumay et al. (2016) identified four distinct stages of
research. Intellectual capital research is still at the forefront of the first stage, which emphasizes
awareness-building to convey the significance of recognizing and comprehending the potential
to develop and maintain a sustainable competitive advantage. In the second stage, existing
research identifies the implementation and impact of IR, which is still fragmented. However,
there is still limited study looking at the diversity of IR practices globally. The fourth stage of
IR research is contemporaneous with the second and third stages because performative
research necessitates a unique point of view. The fourth phase of research focuses on
longitudinal research on how IR is used to navigate value creation more broadly. Thus, to fully
understand the advantages of IR, researchers must consider how they affect the economy,
environment, society and stakeholder groups other than investors.
In response to the work of Dumay et al. (2016) in the fourth stage, this study has
conducted a literature review on this subject regarding IR quality. In addition, a systematic
review of the literature on IR quality has not yet been carried out. Therefore, this study
synthesizes the previous literature in this field. Among the syntheses made, this study
reviews the definitions and dimensions that comprise the quality of IR, the theories and
research methods used in previous studies, as well as the variables pertaining to the quality
of IR. Based on this systematic literature review (SLR), this study highlights research gaps
and provides important directions for future research. Recently, Minutiello and Tettamanzi
(2021) conducted a SLR on two main corporate reporting tools that pay great attention to
sustainability issues, i.e. sustainability reports (SR) and integrated reports (IR). The authors
emphasized the quality of both SR and IR disclosures. To extract quantitative data from the
bibliographic network and identify developing issues, they used a systematic literature
network analysis (SLNA), which combines SLR with bibliographic network analysis. In
contrast to their study, this current one specifically looks at the development of research on
IR. Given the decade-long journey of this new reporting tool, the authors felt it necessary to
review this map of research on IR quality using content analysis on the SLR in this study.
 From the literature review, the authors found that researchers use quantitative research Integrated
methods more widely than qualitative ones, namely, 89% versus 11%. Concerning the reporting
definition of IR quality, the majority of researchers (34 articles or 72%) define it as consistent
with the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) framework, specifically the eight
quality
content elements. Each piece of research has its construct to determine the quality of corporate
reporting, but it is still within the corridor of the IIRC framework. Next, the authors identified
most of the studies in the literature that used agency, legitimacy and stakeholder theories as a
basis for their research. Future studies are expected to elaborate on other theories that emerge.
This study also identified several gaps that could provide directions for future research.
Based on the review conducted, this study makes several contributions. Firstly, this study
provides a comprehensive understanding of the implementation of IR from a quality perspective.
Secondly, a literature study on IR quality has never been conducted. The results of this study
provide an important addition that complements the review of the literature on IR in general.
Hopefully, future research will shift from IR adoption towards IR quality, meaning that this study
can provide a comprehensive understanding for future researchers. Thirdly, this study highlights
existing research gaps and provides a roadmap for future research, both theoretical and empirical.
This article is structured as follows: Section 2 presents the research methods used in the
systematic literature review. Then Section 3 until Section 6 present the mapping results and
literature review on IR quality. Finally, Section 7 provides suggestions for future research
based on the gaps found in this literature review and Section 8 provides the conclusion.

2. Research method
To accomplish the objectives outlined previously, the authors conducted a systematic
review of the literature. To reduce the likelihood of bias and error, a systematic review’s
value depends on rigorous methodology and reporting clarity. Ultimately, the review is
replicable, which means that the other researchers might replicate the review procedure and
reach the same set of supporting data and findings (Bellucci et al., 2022; Linnenluecke et al.,
2020; Moher et al., 2009; Paoloni et al., 2020). The SLR used in this paper is based on the
preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses diagram (Liberati et al.,
2009), which is shown in Figure 1.
Research questions that specify the topic, object and scope of the study serve as the
driving force behind a systematic review process. As a result, our study addressed the
following research questions as the first review protocol:

RQ1. What is the current academic state-of-the-art of integrated reporting quality research?
RQ2. What is the definition of IR quality?
RQ3. What are the dimensions that form IR quality?
RQ4. What are the theoretical lenses that could underlie the IR quality?
RQ5. What are the determinants of, the effect on, and contingent on IR quality?
RQ6. What is the potential research for IR quality in the future?

2.1 Literature search

As an inclusion criterion, this study focused on integrated reporting quality. The authors only
included studies written in English. The literature was searched using the keywords shown in
Table 1 in the Scopus, Web of Science and EBSCOhost databases because most researchers
often use them. Keywords were chosen according to our research interests related to integrated
MEDAR # of articles identified through

Identification
database searching
(n = 237 articles)

# of articles after duplicates

removed
(n = 69 articles)
Screening

# of articles in English # of non-English articles

(n = 66 articles) (n = 3 articles)

# of unavailable full-text
# of available full-text articles
articles
(n = 60 articles)
(n = 6 articles)
Eligibility

# of full-text articles assessed # of non-eligible full-text

for eligibility articles
(n = 40 articles) (n = 20 articles)

# of full-text articles included # of additional articles that are

relevant
Included

in the synthesis
(n = 46 articles) (n = 6 articles)

Figure 1.
PRISMA flow
diagram
Source: Figure by authors based on Liberati et al. (2009)

reporting quality; thus, it is related to a combination of various keywords. To identify the

population, this study began by searching the literature for words commonly used to describe
integrated reporting quality and using combinations of these words. The article was searched
using keywords as follows: “integrated reporting quality”; “integrated report quality”; “reporting
quality” AND “integrated report”; “reporting quality” AND “integrated reporting”; “quality of
integrated reporting”; and “quality of integrated report” as shown in Table 1. As a result of the
search, a total of 237 articles were obtained. After that, the authors eliminated the duplicated
articles and got 69 articles. There were three articles that were not in English, and we eliminated
them, resulting in 66 articles. The relevance of each article based on title, abstract and content
was then determined. The authors eliminated articles considered irrelevant to this study, so 46
articles remained. Next, the availability of full-text articles was checked, and six inaccessible
articles were found, resulting in 40 articles being reviewed. The authors found six additional
articles referenced by the reviewed literature relevant to the IR quality topic while reading the
full-text articles. The six articles are (Ahmed Haji and Anifowose, 2016; Lee and Yeo, 2016;
No. Keyword Scopus Web of Science EBSCOhost Total articles
Integrated
reporting
1 “integrated reporting quality” 25 22 16 63 quality
2 “integrated report quality” 4 3 3 10
3 “reporting quality” AND “integrated report” 18 6 5 29
4 “reporting quality” AND “integrated reporting” 34 31 30 95
5 “quality of integrated reporting” 12 12 4 28
6 “quality of integrated report” 10 0 2 12
Total 237
Duplicates (168)
Non-English (3)
Irrelevance (20)
Unavailable full-text (6)
Articles to be reviewed 40
Additional articles 6
Final articles to be reviewed 46 Table 1.
Result of articles
Source: Table by authors search

Ahmed Haji and Hossain, 2016; Zhou et al., 2017; Rivera-Arrubla et al., 2017; Maroun, 2019).
Thus, there are 46 articles reviewed by the authors, as listed in the Appendix.
Exploration and selection of identified article titles, abstracts and keywords are carried out
based on eligibility criteria. The reading of articles that were not eliminated in the previous
stage was carried out in full or in part to determine whether or not they deserved to be included
in the study in accordance with the eligibility criteria. Article collection was done manually
using a form consisting of the author(s), journal name, article title, theoretical framework(s),
research context and research methodology. Potentially relevant articles were assessed by each
author. The assessment consists of reading the full text and extracting key information.
Discussion between the two authors assisted to settle any disagreements. We started with the
International Integrated Reporting Framework (IIRF) developed by the IIRC and then boursed
the IR quality dimensions from the studies reviewed to ascertain the validity of the IR quality
dimensions. The key is to ensure that the IR quality dimensions truly reflect reporting quality.

2.2 Content analysis

Our SLR study uses content analysis to discover message meanings and patterns in the
articles reviewed. Given the level of subjectivity involved in the content analysis process, we
take several steps in this regard (Krippendorff, 2004). We referred to the IIRF developed by
the IIRC as a starting point and then analysed the IR quality dimensions from the studies
reviewed to ascertain the validity of the IR quality dimensions. The key is to ensure that the
IR quality dimensions truly reflect reporting quality. Moreover, to increase the reliability of
this study, coding was carried out by the two researchers and periodically confirmed during
the ongoing content analysis process to lessen this subjectivity. During the assessment
process, the two authors will discuss the problems that arise.

3. Definition and dimension of integrated reporting quality

The IR is intended to be a single document that offers both financial and non-financial
information, the link between strategy and performance, and an explanation of how that link
enhances value for stakeholders and shareholders. The objective of IR is to enlighten
financial capital providers on the value creation process, which should be lucrative to all
MEDAR relevant stakeholders, according to the IR framework developed by IIRC (International
Integrated Reporting Council, 2013).
When discussing IR quality, the following questions arise. The general question is, what
are the criteria for high-quality IR? The second question is how can we measure such quality
(de Villiers et al., 2017)? According to Vitolla et al. (2019c), the report quality is the quality of
the disclosures contained in a report made by the company. They considered disclosure
quality as an evaluator’s subjective judgement of the reliability, comparability and
usefulness of the information generated by the reporting entity. In other words, the meaning
of disclosure quality is the relative usefulness of the data. Vitolla et al. (2019c) said that
researchers frequently err by confusing the idea of disclosure quality with the volume of
information revealed.
Table 2 shows the definitions and dimensions of IR quality used by previous researchers.
Ahmed Haji and Anifowose (2016), Lee and Yeo (2016), Zhou et al. (2017) and Pistoni et al.
(2018) defined IR quality as the alignment of IR with the pertinent framework. A high level
of alignment can be interpreted as being high-quality IR and vice versa. However, Rivera-
Arrubla et al. (2017) only used IR alignment on two IR principles (connectivity and
materiality) and two content elements (business model and governance). Furthermore,
Ahmed Haji and Hossain (2016) assessed the quality of IR from a linguistic point of view to
determine whether IR has substance or is just mere rhetoric. They highlighted the disclosure
of the six types of capital presented in IR concerning the value creation process.
Moreover, Malola and Maroun (2019) examined the IR quality of the volume of
information reported to stakeholders, emphasizing content elements in relation to the overall
volume of information presented to stakeholders. This included qualitative and quantitative
disclosures, the essence of disclosure (symbolic or substantive) and the simplicity of
information interpretation by stakeholders. However, Gerwanski et al. (2019) and Cooray
et al. (2020) offered a different definition. Gerwanski et al. (2019) emphasized the
consideration of materiality in compiling IR aligned with the relevant framework, while
Cooray et al. (2020) focused more on qualitative characteristics in presenting the strategic
aspects of IR that define the generation of corporate value. Based on the literature on the
definition of IR quality, this study concludes that IR quality cannot be defined narrowly that
only limited to the number of disclosures. More than that, IR quality is the degree to which a
company’s IR follows the guidelines contained in the relevant framework and has the
substance required by the report users, thus presenting all material information regarding
matters that could influence the company in creating value (Ahmed Haji and Anifowose,
2016; Lee and Yeo, 2016; Zhou et al., 2017; Pistoni et al., 2018). From Table 2, this study
summarized the key dimensions of IR quality.
Based on the reviewed articles (Ahmed Haji and Anifowose, 2016; Lee and Yeo, 2016;
Zhou et al., 2017; Pistoni et al., 2018), the dimensions that construct IR quality refer to the
guiding principles and content elements of the IIRF as follows:
 Strategic focus and future orientation. IR is considered to be qualified if it provides
useful information to support stakeholders in assessing organizational performance
in the future. Any information disclosed in IR should maintain the principle of
“strategic focus and future orientation”, even though most of the available data
refers to past activities and performance that have been achieved by the
organization. Absolutely, this kind of information (past, present and future) will be
useful for stakeholders who will make decisions about whether to be engaged or not
with the organization. This principle can be presented in an integrated manner with
the opportunities, risks and/or capital interdependence in the organization’s
business model (Busco et al., 2013; Kunc et al., 2021).
Authors Definitions of IR quality Dimensions of IR quality
Integrated
reporting
Ahmed Haji and The normative understanding  Strategic focus and future orientation quality
Anifowose (2016) of the existing IR guidelines  Connectivity of information
 Stakeholder relationships
 Materiality
 Risk management practices
 Conciseness
 Reliability and completeness
 Consistency, comparability and assurances
Lee and Yeo (2016) The level of alignment of an  Organizational overview and external
Zhou et al. (2017) integrated report with the IIRF environment
 Strategy and resource allocation
 Business model
 Governance
 Risks and opportunities
 Performance
 Outlook
 Basis of preparation and presentation
Ahmed Haji and How companies link and  Rhetorical manipulation
Hossain (2016) integrate multiple types of  Thematic manipulation
capital within the context of  Selectivity
material issues and the value  The emphasis on visual presentation
creation/destruction process;  Performance comparisons
how companies discuss
organizational value creation/
destruction discourses within
the context of multiple capitals
following the adoption of IR
practice; the linguistic and
semiotic decisions underlying
six types of capital disclosures
Rivera-Arrubla et al. The application level of two IR  Business model
(2017) principles (connectivity and  Connectivity
materiality) and two content  Materiality
elements of IR (business model  Corporate governance
and governance) are described  Content of report
and analyzed in the documents
that develop the IIRF
Pistoni et al. (2018) The agreement between the IR  Background
Vitolla et al. (2020a) document’s recommendations  Assurance and reliability
Vitolla et al. (2020a, and the IR framework’s  Content
2020b, 2020c) requirements for eight aspects  Form
Vitolla et al. (2020c) and two key concepts (capitals
Raimo et al. (2020) and value creation)
Table 2.
Raimo et al. (2021) Definitions and
dimensions of IR
Source: Table by authors quality

 Connectivity of information. IR must present a comprehensive picture of the

elements influencing an organization’s ability to create value over time. To be of
quality, this principle is seen as important in presenting a comprehensive vision of a
company’s ability to create value. This can include the integration of financial and
non-financial information describing the main drivers in the value-creation process.
MEDAR In addition, information that presents the organization’s past, present and future
activities can also improve the quality of IR in terms of its usefulness in analyzing
management capabilities and quality. Besides, the integration of qualitative and
quantitative information is also required so that the IR quality is enhanced and
demonstrates the ability of the organization to create value, for example, including
key performance indicators as part of a narrative description can be a way of
demonstrating information connectivity (International Integrated Reporting
Council, 2013; Paternostro, 2013; Grassmann et al., 2019).
 Stakeholder relationships. A high-quality IR shows how managers prioritize stakeholder
needs and the extent to which IR is linked to the stakeholder relationship. IR that
contains these disclosures enhances the fulfilment of transparency and accountability
demands. According to stakeholder theory, stakeholder management is very important
for organizational value creation, so managers’ concern for their stakeholders can be
reflected in a comprehensive reporting form such as IR. Meanwhile, according to IIRF,
IR should provide insight into the nature and quality of the organization’s relationship
with its key stakeholders, including how and to what extent the organization
understands, considers and responds to their needs and interests. This suggests that the
more important the stakeholders, the more management will try to meet their
expectations (Vitolla et al., 2019c; Sciulli and Adhariani, 2022).
 Materiality and conciseness. The materiality principle requires IR to disclose information
on matters that substantively affect an organization’s ability to create value over time.
IIRF offers the principle of materiality in the preparation of IR so that in developing the
process of determining materiality and applying this principle, there is significant
variation between organizations. A high-quality IR demonstrates the process of
determining materiality and what is considered material issues therein. Through this
principle, organizations are encouraged to disclose material information about strategy,
governance, performance and future prospects by taking into account the social and
environmental aspects in which the company operates (International Integrated
Reporting Council, 2013; Fasan and Mio, 2017; Lai et al., 2017; Green and Cheng, 2019).
Meanwhile, the conciseness principle is still related to materiality in the sense that to
achieve conciseness, and materiality plays an important role in determining what issues
will be included in an IR (Lakshan et al., 2022). According to Melloni et al. (2017), a high-
quality IR is a report that concisely communicates how a company’s strategy,
governance, performance and prospects lead to sustainable value creation. At the same
time, IR should be complete and balanced, covering all material, both positive and
negative. In the early years of IR adoption, it was shown that it tended to be longer, less
readable and more cheerful, resulting in less concise and less balanced. Furthermore,
companies with poorer social-environmental performance provide reports that are less
concise and less complete. A recent study conducted by Caglio et al. (2020) found
evidence that conciseness is associated with higher stock liquidity. Although concise, IR
certainly does not ignore aspects of readability and tone bias. Furthermore, Caglio et al.
(2020) confirmed that readability is related to higher market valuations and a biased tone
with dispersed analyst estimates. Their results showed that market participants value
IR that is easy to read, concise and focused.
 Reliability, completeness, consistency and comparability. As previously discussed, IR
should cover all material matters, both positive and negative, in a balanced manner.
Fulfilment of the reliability principle can improve the quality of IR in the sense that
there are mechanisms such as strong internal control, stakeholder involvement,
 internal audit function and independent external assurance as well. The principle of Integrated
completeness could improve the quality of IR in terms of the information disclosed reporting
containing both balanced positive and negative as well as financial and non-
financial information. Nonetheless, Ahmed Haji and Anifowose (2016) found that
quality
compliance with this principle is still low because companies tend to exaggerate
positive disclosures and obscure or ignore negative information. Their finding is
also supported by Melloni et al. (2017) that early adopters of IR with weak financial
performance tend to publish IR that are significantly longer and less readable as
well as more optimistic. Furthermore, companies with poorer social performance
provide more obscure and less information about sustainability performance.
However, a recent study by Caglio et al. (2020) demonstrated that assurance on IR
moderates the adverse effect of poor textual qualities, indicating that assurance
serves as a means of improving credibility for external users. Meanwhile, to fulfil
the principles of consistency and comparability, IIRF has provided guidelines for
organizations in preparing IR. While variations between organizations may vary,
this guide makes it easy for users to assess IR across organizations.
 Organizational overview and business model. A system for converting inputs into
outputs and results that are intended to achieve an organization’s strategic goals
and add value over the short, medium and long terms is known as a business model.
A clear and simple diagram that highlights key components, narrative flow,
identification of key stakeholders, key factors affecting the external environment,
connections to strategy, risks and opportunities and performance are all features
that can enhance the effectiveness and readability of business model representations
(Lee and Yeo, 2016; Zhou et al., 2017; Barth et al., 2017). The fact that traditional
reports fall short of accurately describing how businesses deploy different capitals
to create value is one of IIRC’s primary motivations for delivering IIRF. Because it
links an organization’s strategy, governance, engaged stakeholders, performance
and prospects to public reporting, IIRC uses the business model as a core concept
within IR (Tweedie et al., 2018). However, there is still insufficient research on the
idea of a business model in IR, leaving space for further study.
 Operating context. The operating environment of the organization, including the
external environment, should be described in integrated reports. The context in which
an organization operates and how well it can generate value in the short, medium and
long terms are defined by the external environment, which includes monetary
conditions, technological advancements, social problems and environmental concerns.
Integrated reports should emphasize perspectives and projected changes throughout
time as well as provide information on the surrounding environment. The outlook also
outlines the organization’s current capability for responding to major challenges and
unforeseen circumstances (International Integrated Reporting Council, 2013; Stent and
Dowler, 2015).
 Risk and opportunities. This dimension identifies specific risks and opportunities
that have an impact on an organization’s capability to generate value over time, as
well as the impact or likelihood of those risks or opportunities occurring, as well as
the strategic actions the organization has taken to mitigate those risks or acquire
those particular opportunities (International Integrated Reporting Council, 2013; Lee
and Yeo, 2016).
 Governance. The governance dimension, which includes diversity and skills, generally
represents the governing framework supporting an organization’s capacity to generate
MEDAR value. Moreover, the risk management system and the handling of integrity and ethical
issues are two additional mechanisms that are described in this dimension that is used
to make strategic decisions. The governance dimension also discusses the relationship
between compensation and incentives for performance and value creation (International
Integrated Reporting Council, 2013). According to Ahmed Haji and Anifowose (2016),
the adoption of IR as a component of the governance reform of South African
corporations is anticipated enhancing the nation’s reputation and competitiveness in
international financial markets. South African regulations require the establishment of
a social and ethics committee board to oversee sustainability and good corporate
citizenship practices. The role of this committee is important in monitoring the
company’s non-financial performance, thereby explicitly considering a wider group of
stakeholders.
 Performance. A high-quality IR report on organizational performance achievements,
both financial and non-financial. This quality can be improved by providing past
and current performance information as well as future performance projections,
either in the form of key performance indicators or the like. The performance
information presented contains both quantitative and qualitative information and is
linked to targets as well as risks and opportunities. This supports the information
connectivity dimension in the IR.

4. Theoretical lenses
The most prominent result seen in Figure 2 was that agency theory is the most widely used,
with about 25.76% of the total hits. This is followed by legitimacy and stakeholder theory,
each with 16.67%. Meanwhile, several other theories were used to describe IR quality,
together amounting to 5% of the total hits. The following explanations show how numerous

Theorecal Lenses of IR Quality

18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Voluntary disclosure theory

Token theory

Stockholders Theory
Proprietary cost theory

Signaling theory
Agency theory

Stakeholder theory

Moral theory

Upper echelons theory

Economic-based theory

Behavioral theory
Legimacy theory

Resource dependence theory

Impression management theory

Conngency theory
Cognive development theory

Crical mass theory

Adverse selecon theory

Polical cost theory

Posive accounng theory

Informaon asymmetric theory

Neo-instuonal theory

Organizaonal change theory

Instuonal theory

Figure 2.
Theoretical lenses of
IR quality Source: Figure by authors
theories have been synthesized to comprehend the theoretical applications in IR quality Integrated
research. reporting
quality
4.1 Agency, legitimacy and stakeholder theory
The three most widely used theoretical frameworks in the field of IR quality are agency,
legitimacy and stakeholder theories. According to agency theory, the board has a role as a
controlling mechanism that weighs managers’ and shareholders’ interests with regard to
both financial and non-financial information. In the context of IR, this reporting can be a tool
for taking responsibility that includes financial and non-financial information so that
asymmetric information can be suppressed because uninformed investors can obtain
complete and publicly available information. Here the board’s role is to encourage managers
to provide such information through IR, which can have minimal impact on agency
problems and costs (Sriani and Agustia, 2020; Chouaibi and Hichri, 2021; Raimo et al., 2021).
According to the legitimacy theory, a company uses IR to boost its reputation while
maintaining its existence (Mans-Kemp and van der Lugt, 2020; Chouaibi and Hichri, 2021).
Companies frequently aim to increase and preserve their legitimacy, particularly through
disclosing corporate social and environmental information (Erin and Adegboye, 2022).
When companies face a situation in which their operations have a significant social and
environmental impact, they tend to present IR in more detail to legitimize their business
than companies with a small impact do. Thus, to communicate changes in company
behaviour to improve poor legitimacy, IR can be used as a disclosure medium (Mans-Kemp
and van der Lugt, 2020).
Furthermore, from the standpoint of stakeholder theory, IR aims to promote an
integrated method of corporate reporting and enhance the high level of the information
provided to stakeholders (Cucari and Mugova, 2017; Vitolla et al., 2019c; Chouaibi and
Hichri, 2021). According to this theory, and as promoted by the IIRC, this form of reporting
ought to shed light on the character and level of the organization’s interactions with its
principal stakeholders. In addition, organizations are encouraged to express how well they
comprehend, take into account and address broader stakeholder demands and interests
(International Integrated Reporting Council, 2013; Wang et al., 2020). According to this
notion, managers must appease a wide range of stakeholders who may have an impact on
the results of the organization. Otherwise, if the company’s emphasis is more narrowly on
maximizing shareholder value, these non-financial stakeholders may quit backing it
(Freundlieb et al., 2014; Gerwanski et al., 2019; Pavlopoulos et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2020).
According to this theory, and as promoted by the IIRC, this kind of reporting should provide
insight into the nature and degree of interactions between the organization and its key
stakeholders.

4.2 Proprietary cost theory

The IIRC framework is structured according to a principles-based approach. This
framework has wide flexibility depending on the different circumstances of the individual
organization, although one of its principles is to allow for an adequate level of comparability
to suit the needs of pertinent information. Key performance indicators, measuring
techniques or disclosures of particular organizational concerns are not included in this
framework. As a result, personnel in charge of IR preparation and presentation must
exercise adequate discretion in deciding what information has to be revealed and how. In
South Africa itself, although IR is mandatory, managers still have considerable flexibility
and discretion over corporate disclosure policies. From the perspective of proprietary cost
theory, by assessing the benefits and costs of a broad openness strategy, companies will
MEDAR decide on the proper level of transparency. Of course, they do not disclose information of a
sensitive nature that competitors could benefit from. According to this theory, if IR forces
companies to disclose proprietary information, the company’s value will decrease because
IR disclosures become expensive. Companies will limit voluntary disclosure because the
dissemination of strategic information can provide advantages for competitors (Lee and
Yeo, 2016; Pistoni et al., 2018; Agustia et al., 2020).

4.3 Signalling theory

Organizational reporting quality can also be explained by signalling theory. According to
this notion, signals are communicated to the market through information disclosure to
alleviate information asymmetry, lower funding costs and improve company worth. More
profitable companies will voluntarily publish information to differentiate themselves from
less profitable organizations (Dilling and Caykoylu, 2019). In addition, signalling theory also
shows that there is value in disclosing information which could indicate an encouraging
sign for investors when making economic decisions. Thus, the disclosure of information in
IR is used by managers as a signalling tool when companies are trying to manage the
perceptions of their constituents (Chouaibi et al., 2022a).

4.4 Voluntary disclosure theory

Voluntary disclosure theory asserts that voluntary disclosure helps increase the availability
of company information by enhancing analysts’ comprehension of the business’s prospects.
Research on IR quality expands the extent of evaluating voluntary disclosure theory, which
until now has been limited to only financial information or only non-financial information.
IR introduces a brand-new sphere of corporate voluntary reporting that transcends existing
corporate reporting practices and becomes a new norm for corporate reporting.
Furthermore, voluntary disclosure is made by the company because it is based on the
motivation to contribute to decreasing uncertainty towards the company’s future. This is
contained in the IR principles, which emphasize the disclosure of strategies, business models
and forward-looking information so that it is expected to reduce uncertainty over the long-
term performance of the company. In addition, for companies that are less well-known, to
increase the wider range of investors, voluntary disclosure could inform them of their
presence (Zhou et al., 2017).

4.5 Impression management theory

Organizational reporting practices can also be explained by impression management theory.
This theory has its origins in the social psychology literature, where individuals or
organizations seek to control the perceptions of others to obtain certain benefits. Accounting
research uses this theory to explain organizational reporting practices, for example, through
syntactic, rhetorical or thematic manipulations. Companies may choose to use rhetorical
language and linguistics to exaggerate advantageous information and conceal poor
outcomes or to correlate managerial decisions with favourable results and external variables
with unsuccessful outcomes. In short, with this theoretical lens, organizations use symbolic
disclosures that build positive corporate framing to gain and maintain legitimacy and
reputation. Impression management theory was used by Ahmed Haji and Hossain (2016),
who found that companies constantly use various impression management techniques to
exaggerate positive results and ignore negative trends. They conclude that the practice of IR
still lacks substance.
4.6 Other theories Integrated
Other theories that have been identified in the IR quality literature are moral theory, reporting
signalling theory, voluntary disclosure theory, impression management theory, cognitive
development theory, institutional theory, organizational change theory, behavioural theory
quality
and so on (Figure 1). These theories require further investigation concerning IR practice,
which opens up opportunities for future research.

5. Methodological application
The research method used in the reviewed literature varies. The authors found that the
research method used was primarily quantitative, with 41 articles (89%). In contrast, the
literature that uses qualitative methods is only five articles (11%).

5.1 Trend analysis

In assessing the quality of IR, Ahmed Haji and Hossain (2016), Rivera-Arrubla et al. (2017)
and Pistoni et al. (2018) used content analysis to observe trends in testing whether the level
and quality of reporting has increased or not. They developed their definition and construct
to assess IR quality using IIRF. Each of them concluded that the quality of companies’
published IR has improved.

5.2 Discourse analysis

Using a discourse-based qualitative case study methodology, Ahmed Haji and Hossain
(2016) examined how IR adoption has affected organizational reporting practices.
Specifically, they examined how companies report and integrate multiple capitals across an
organization’s various reporting channels, including IR, SR, websites and other online
materials. The discourse analysis was framed by using impression management theory to
explain the disclosure and integration of numerous capitals through five techniques, which
are rhetorical manipulation, thematic manipulation, selectivity, emphasis on the visual
display and performance comparison. The research is unique in that it uses linguistic and
semiotic analysis, examining specific grammatical and emerging themes in the expression
of multiple types of capital. Their findings demonstrated that, despite requests in IR
guidelines to balance “positive” and “negative” disclosures, businesses still overstate
positive information while ignoring unfavourable results.

5.3 Archival study

Most studies used the archival method to test the hypotheses they had developed. They
based these hypotheses on certain constructs that posit IR quality as the dependent variable
or as an independent variable. The relationships between these variables are presented in
Figure 2. The authors synthesized those measurements, as shown in Table 3. The majority
of researchers used content analysis to measure IR quality. Some of them developed their

Measurement Authors

Self-constructed measurement based on Lee and Yeo (2016), Zhou et al. (2017); Pistoni et al. (2018), Ghani
content analysis et al. (2018); Gerwanski et al. (2019), Pavlopoulos et al. (2019)
Integrated reporting award Barth et al. (2017), Cosma et al. (2018)
Index from an external provider Zúñiga et al. (2020) Table 3.
IR quality
Source: Table by authors measurement
MEDAR own dimensions that construct the quality of IR, such as what was conducted by Lee and
Yeo (2016), Pozzoli and Gesuele (2016), Zhou et al. (2017), Pistoni et al. (2018), Ghani et al.
(2018), Gerwanski et al. (2019), Pavlopoulos et al. (2019), Pratama et al. (2019), Amirrudin
et al. (2021), Piesiewicz et al. (2021). Furthermore, Barth et al. (2017) and Cosma et al. (2018)
used award categories such as the EY Excellence in Integrated Reporting Awards. They
used an ordinal scale based on these award categories, which are the excellent, good,
average and progress needed categories. In contrast to the other researchers, Zúñiga et al.
(2020) measured the quality of information disclosed in the IR according to the sustainability
data transparency index because it reflects the company’s commitment to include
environmental, social and governance (ESG) information. The integrated reporting and
assurance services (IRAS), which assesses the quality, consistency, completeness and
trustworthiness of quantitative data based on the elements of IR and global reporting
initiatives, provides this index. The most thorough annual assessment of ESG reporting in
South Africa is provided by IRAS.

6. Antecedents, consequences and contingencies of IR quality

Having discussed the definition of IR quality, theoretical lenses and methodological
applications, this study synthesizes the empirical evidence reviewed concerning the factors
influencing IR quality and its impact. In addition, this study discusses the contingent
variables that influence the mechanisms and contexts in which IR quality affects outcomes.
Prior to the discussion, the outline in Figure 3 provides an overview of the findings.

6.1 Antecedents
6.1.1 Internal determinants. The literature review results have identified several relevant
antecedents to explain the factors that influence IR quality.
6.1.2 Corporate attributes. Iredele (2019), Vitolla et al. (2020a) and Erin and Adegboye
(2022) found that profitability, firm size, firm age and leverage determine the quality of IR.
Companies that are dedicated to CSR are encouraged to share more non-financial
information to legitimize their initiatives. As a result of increased profitability, top
management is persuaded to release more information illustrating the company’s capacity
to maximize shareholder value. According to Vitolla et al. (2020a), firm size positively
correlates with IR quality. The size of the company directly correlates with the size of the
investment, revenue and profit, which, in turn, shows a commitment to CSR activities. The
majority of shareholders and employees are attracted by large corporations. Their ability to
meet the enormous demand for information is becoming increasingly dependent on their
ability to provide high-quality IR. Large businesses also face more pressure from
stakeholders and the government because of their greater social impacts. Additionally,
businesses with greater financial leverage will pay more for monitoring. By proving to
creditors their capacity, good disclosures help businesses fulfil their financial commitments.
Additionally, as leverage rises, so does the likelihood of bankruptcy. To lower this risk,
businesses should give more thorough information of adequate quality.
6.1.3 Corporate governance. In general, the corporate governance level affects the IR
quality. Chouaibi et al. (2022b, 2022a) confirmed that corporate governance enhances the
quality and trustworthiness of IR. Regarding one of the components of governance, Chariri
and Januarti (2017), Erin and Adegboye (2022) and Raimo et al. (2021) investigated the effect
of audit committee characteristics (size, expertise, meeting frequency and independence) on
IR quality and found a positive relationship between them. Larger groups could benefit from
each member’s ideas, experience and expertise, which, in turn, increases the group’s control
and supervision capabilities. From this perspective, the audit committee’s effectiveness in
 Corporate Attributes
Integrated
ƒ Firm size reporting
ƒ Firm age
ƒ Firm growth quality
ƒ Cost of capital
ƒ Publication on the IIRC
website
ƒ Length of report
ƒ Number of the previous
IR published
ƒ Separate sustainability Moderators:
report
ƒ Organizational complexity
ƒ Learning effect
ƒ External financing needs
ƒ Readability
ƒ Firm size
ƒ Compliance with
reporting framework
ƒ Listing on Dow Jones
Sustainability Index
Consequences:
ƒ Cost of capital
ƒ Information asymmetry
Corporate Performance ƒ Analyst forecast
ƒ Profitability IR ƒ Firm value
ƒ Leverage Quality ƒ Financial performance
ƒ Earnings quality ƒ Market performance
ƒ Sustainability performance ƒ Tax avoidance
ƒ Market performance
ƒ Non-financial performance

Moderators:
ƒ Corporate social
Corporate Governance responsibility
ƒ Auditor
ƒ Assurance
ƒ Board attributes
ƒ Audit committee
attributes
ƒ Ownership structure
ƒ Level of CG

External determinants
ƒ Region
ƒ Industry membership
ƒ Legal systems
ƒ National culture
ƒ Stakeholders’ pressures Figure 3.
ƒ Media exposure Antecedent,
consequences and
contingents
Source: Figure by authors

the oversight function is closely related to the available human resources; in other words, it
depends on the number of its members. A larger audit committee is more likely to identify
and address possible issues with the reporting process due to the possibility of having
diversity, expertise and opinions that can enhance the oversight function. It demonstrated
that one aspect affecting the superior quality of corporate reporting disclosures is the size of
the audit committee. Additionally, the audit committee’s competence and expertise,
particularly its financial expertise, may improve the efficacy of supervision. Their financial
know-how can lessen internal control flaws, ease tensions between managers and external
auditors and ensure a favourable response from the capital market. The findings from Abad
and Bravo (2018) support that the quality of forward-looking disclosures is correlated with
the audit committee members’ competency in accounting. Furthermore, a crucial evaluation
MEDAR of the audit committee’s operations and procedures is the frequency of meetings because it
often leads to an increase in the supervisory function, which also impacts the quality of
reporting. Last but not least, independent audit committees frequently exert influence over
management and the board to promote the disclosure of relevant information in the IR.
However, the audit committees may not have the necessary expertise to address the new
risks associated with a volatile business environment, as found by Cooray et al. (2020). A
technique to improve the standard of risk-related information sharing is the establishment
of a separate risk management committee. Overall, the audit committee is essential to a solid
corporate governance system and high-quality financial reporting. Since IR is a component
of corporate reporting that encourages more transparent and integrated information, the
audit committee’s role is to oversee and review this type of report.
Meanwhile, the board of directors – an essential component of governance – also
influences the quality of the IR because it is responsible for representing the interests of
different stakeholders and has a central role in the IR. Gender diversity and board size have
been essential components in empirical research because they can influence board decisions,
determining how high the level of non-financial reporting is. Women’s representation on the
board can enhance board decisions by bringing new perspectives, abilities, values and
beliefs that may enhance the effectiveness of IR. Gerwanski et al. (2019), Iredele (2019);
Vitolla et al. (2020b); Wang et al. (2020); Chouaibi et al. (2022b); Erin and Adegboye (2022);
and Chouaibi et al. (2022a) identified a relationship between gender diversity and superior
IR. This implies that gender diversity not only serves as a positive CSR signal but is also
linked to a considerable increase in reporting disclosures. Implicitly, findings from Gordini
and Rancati (2017) suggested that greater gender diversity can generate economic benefits
that do not reduce shareholder value. Nonetheless, Songini et al. (2022) found different
results: that the presence of women was negatively associated with IR quality. Songini et al.
(2022) not only look at the diversity of the board in terms of gender but also the diversity of
ages and levels of education. Their findings showed that education level is positively
associated with IR quality.
The effectiveness of corporate governance is also highly dependent on the board’s
composition. A larger non-executive membership on the board can supervise management
effectively because non-executive members hold no position within the corporation and are
not actively engaged in commercial activity. They can provide more objective feedback
concerning management and company performance. Vitolla et al. (2020b); Wang et al. (2020);
Chouaibi et al. (2022b); Erin and Adegboye (2022); and Chouaibi et al. (2022a) discovered that
having more non-executive members makes the board’s oversight more effective which
promotes the revelation of high-quality information to guarantee the accomplishment of
business goals and proper behaviour. Different orientations between the executive and non-
executive members allow a balance between the needs of the business and stakeholders,
thus improving the quality of the information delivered.
Furthermore, Vitolla et al. (2020b) and Wang et al. (2020) found that board activity
determines the quality of IR. A board that organizes more meetings will put more effort and
will more effectively address the needs of stakeholders. A more engaged board will involve
providing shareholders and stakeholders with a higher volume of information. In relation to
the core principle of IR, information connectivity needs the board to monitor more closely,
necessitating more meetings. A company’s IR quality may undoubtedly improve as a result
of the board’s heightened oversight and scrutiny. Meanwhile, Erin and Adegboye (2022)
found a positive relationship between board financial expertise and IR quality. Another
board characteristic that can also affect the quality of IR is CEO duality which can hinder
the ability of the board to monitor management. Chouaibi et al. (2022a) provide evidence that
the separation function of the CEO and chairman of the board is expected to be a primary Integrated
factor of higher-quality IR disclosures as it becomes a mechanism for controlling executives. reporting
The separation between these functions allows leaders to demonstrate reliable transparency
because conflicts of interest and asymmetric information are problems that hinder the
quality
company’s success.
Another governance system that affects IR quality is the ownership structure. It affects
disclosure policies in terms of the extent to which information is disclosed, the level of
monitoring, as well as the quality of disclosure. According to Raimo et al. (2020),
institutional ownership has a positive impact, while ownership, managerial, government
concentration and IR quality have a negative impact. Therefore, companies must disclose
high-quality information that is able to capture the full portrait of the company’s
management as well as the company’s ability to generate value over time. Additionally,
asymmetric information levels within a firm can be impacted by differing ownership
structures, which might change disclosure practices, particularly IR. In this situation,
disclosure is a technique that can lessen information asymmetry and align the interests of
owners and management. Concerning the reliability of the report, Rivera-Arrubla et al.
(2017), Malola and Maroun (2019); Gerwanski et al. (2019), Maroun (2019); Chouaibi et al.
(2022b); and Hoang and Phang (2021) discovered that external assurance affects IR quality
because it helps organizations show key stakeholders how reliable IR is. The assurance
engagements that contribute most significantly to the quality of the report include
disclosure of social and environmental sustainability and compliance with the principles of
materiality, inclusivity and responsiveness. The findings of Chouaibi et al. (2022b) provide
evidence that auditor specialization and ethical factors positively impact IR quality. They
recommend that audit firms adopt an ethical approach and invest in CSR. The audit
committee coordinates the functions of management assurance, internal assurance and
external assurance in contrast to the single assurance model (that is, financial statement
audit and ESG assurance) and comes to conclusions about the efficacy of risk management,
internal control and reporting quality. The findings of Donkor et al. (2021) and Hoang and
Phang (2021) suggest that combined assurance could effectively increase the credibility of
reporting practices.
6.1.4 External determinants. Concerning external determinants, Vitolla et al. (2019a)
analysed the connection between IR quality and stakeholder pressure. Their findings
supported this relationship and demonstrated, using stakeholder theory, how pressure from
the government, employees, shareholders, environmental protection groups and customers
affects the quality of IR. Companies are encouraged to share information with stakeholders
to assist them make decisions and to ensure that their behaviour is appropriate.
Stakeholders play a crucial role, which makes it feasible to put pressure on the corporation
to provide additional information. Furthermore, with regard to external determinants,
Vitolla et al. (2019b) also investigated the national culture’s effect on the level of IR from the
same theoretical perspective. They showed that IR quality is related to Hofstede’s five
dimensions, which are power distance, individualism, masculinity, indulgence negatively
and uncertainty positively. The characteristics of a nation’s culture describe the general
similarities and variations among all cultures, imply special linkages and influence the
preferences and behaviour of stakeholders.
The legislative framework of a nation is also an external factor that affects the quality of
IR. According to Vitolla et al. (2020a), a well-developed legal system designed to protect
stakeholders is the reason for the high degree of legislation and coercive pressure. Because
the firm is viewed as an independent economic entity that incorporates a number of
stakeholders, including shareholders, managers, customers, suppliers and employees, the
MEDAR civil law system is more stakeholder-oriented than the common law. This situation causes
companies operating in civil law countries to provide high-quality information that is able to
meet the needs of stakeholders. Companies that operate in civil law nations are forced by
this circumstance to offer high-quality information that can satisfy stakeholders’ needs.
Moreover, Rivera-Arrubla et al. (2017) found that region and industry are determinants of IR
quality. Reporting variations are empirically proven to be influenced by the region in which
the company operates, such as political conditions, reporting culture, regulations, as well as
sensitivity to environmental and social responsibilities. The industry also has a significant
influence on reporting quality. In industries that are sensitive to the environment, the
attention is more on environmental information. Therefore, companies in industries that are
more sensitive to the environment tend to develop more environmental initiatives and report
them.

6.2 Consequences
A total of 13 articles analysed the consequences of IR quality. Lee and Yeo (2016) and Moloi
and Iredele (2020) investigated the relationship between IR quality and firm value and found
a positive relationship. The results showed that, on average, the benefits of IR could
outweigh the costs. Furthermore, García-Sanchez and Noguera-Gamez (2017) and Zúñiga
et al. (2020) analysed the possible relationship between IR quality and asymmetric
information and found a negative relationship. It implies that IR may be a tool for reducing
agency issues, assisting business decision-making and increasing the information that
investors have. The existence of asymmetric information can create uncertainty in the stock
market as well as costs due to the adverse selection problem because better-informed
investors will use their private information in trading.
Concerning the two objectives of IR identified in the IIRF – that is, enhanced information
for external financial capital providers and improved internal decision-making – Barth et al.
(2017) found a positive association between IR quality, stock liquidity and expected future
cash flows, but not for the cost of capital. Along with analyst forecast error and dispersion,
Zhou et al. (2017) discovered that the cost of capital was adversely correlated with IR
quality. Their findings demonstrate that IR is increasingly able to deliver meaningful
information to the capital market beyond existing reporting systems which supports the two
aims of IR, namely, enhancing external information and better internal decisions. In
addition, the information contained in the IR is also useful for analysts in assessing the
company’s financial performance in the future, and investors are willing to accept lower
rates of return as a result of reducing information risk. This finding is also in line with the
findings of Zúñiga et al. (2020). The different results shown by Leukhardt et al. (2022) that
there is no significant relationship between IR quality and the accuracy of analysts’ forecast
earnings, especially in a voluntary setting. According to them, current high-quality
integrated reports do not appear to improve a company’s information environment and do
not provide additional relevant information to capital markets in a voluntary setting.
Cosmulese et al. (2019), Matemane and Wentzel (2019) and Ciubotariu et al. (2021)
examined the relationship between IR quality and financial performance and found that
only earnings per share were positively related, while firm value and profitability were not
associated. Future research needs to reexamine this issue, considering that short-term
earnings represented by EPS are as important as long-term values represented by Tobin’s Q
and economic value added. Meanwhile, Pavlopoulos et al. (2019) examined the level of
information offered by businesses that include an IR component in their annual reports.
They discovered that companies with high IR quality typically exhibit high market values
per share, and greater market values are seen in companies with significant levels of
leverage and liquidity. This finding supports IR; that is, the level of IR disclosure could Integrated
determine the effectiveness of IR in the context of the capital market. Companies are reporting
motivated to adopt IR solely so that the available information becomes simpler and more
integrated and related to the company’s business, thus enabling them to communicate their
quality
ability to create value at the moment and in the future in a complete and transparent
manner. Therefore, the results of the analysis by Pavlopoulos et al. (2019) confirmed that the
adoption of IR will mark a new reporting era, supported and accompanied by integrated
thinking.
A high-quality IR can also result in a lower cost of capital. According to Vitolla et al.
(2020c), high-quality IR can lower the cost of equity capital by lowering estimation risk,
asymmetries in information, investor monitoring costs and investor preference changes. As
a result, increased information and a high level of transparency allow for lower shareholder
returns. In addition, greater levels of disclosure increase investor recognition and broaden
the investor base, thereby encouraging risk sharing. As for the cost of debt, Raimo et al.
(2022) discovered a negative correlation between it and IR quality. This implies that
businesses offering high-quality IR gain by having easier access to outside financial
resources.
Recently, Donkor et al. (2022) examined the relationship between IR quality and
corporate tax avoidance and found they had a negative relationship. Although legal, tax
avoidance has attracted great attention because of its potential role as a means of obtaining
tax benefits. There are two schools of thought about tax avoidance. The first thought is in
line with the shareholder perspective, where the primary responsibility of management is to
maximize shareholder wealth. It means that management needs efforts to reduce taxes. The
second thought asserts that the companies should pay their fair share of taxes. Tax
avoidance is unethical and cannot be justified because it will reduce government revenue
and its ability to provide for the needs of citizens. Improvements in accountability, service,
trust, information flow openness, decision-making and tax risk management systems have
all been linked to the IR. It provides management and tax authorities with better and
more information about the company to all interested parties. The IR’s transparency should
make tax avoidance techniques more obvious and discourage such behaviour. The findings
of Donkor et al. (2022) are in line with the hypothesis that tax avoidance techniques can be
exposed through IR and the practice reduced. Although the IR can create tax planning
opportunities for companies, they use IR to align with stakeholders because companies
avoid legitimacy issues that endanger reputational risk by reducing tax avoidance practices.

6.3 Moderating effects

The literature that has been reviewed identified several effects of moderator variables. On
the association between IR quality and consequences, two moderator variables were
proposed by Lee and Yeo (2016); that is, the association between IR quality and firm value is
moderated by organizational complexity and the necessity for outside financing. They
discovered that companies with more organizational complexity had a stronger positive
relationship between IR quality and company. In addition, they discovered that
organizations with more external financing needs have a stronger link between IR quality
and firm value.
Chouaibi and Hichri (2021) found that corporate social responsibility was able to
moderate the relationship between board characteristics and IR quality. Implementing CSR
can urge organizations to conduct their business operations in a more responsible manner so
that they do not negatively impact the environment and society. It is impossible to separate
the roles played by a company’s internal and external stakeholders from the successful
MEDAR implementation of CSR. If they are to be applied to the operational activities of a business,
strong corporate governance concepts must be thoroughly understood by every manager.
Companies’ commitment to CSR requires them to be more transparent and encourages
companies to be more concerned about the environmental and social impacts of their
activities. This form of transparency manifests itself in high-quality IR.

7. Future research directions

7.1 Future theoretical directions
According to the review conducted for this study, the theories most frequently used by
researchers to underlie the practice and quality of IR are agency, legitimacy and stakeholder
theories. Other theories that are still limited in their use, such as institutional, organizational
change, behavioural, resource dependence and positive accounting theories, require further
investigation. Therefore, future research is expected to be able to use these other limited
theories to understand their relationship with IR quality.

7.2 Future empirical directions

Firstly, there are different dimensions in forming the definition of IR quality, although the
most widely used and examined are the measurements proposed by Ahmed Haji and
Anifowose (2016), Lee and Yeo (2016), Zhou et al. (2017) and Pistoni et al. (2018). Future
research could redevelop the dimensions that comprise the quality of IR, for example, by
combining one or more dimensions from one definition of IR with another definition of IR
because there is still plenty of room to develop measurements for IR quality. Secondly,
future research could re-confirm the findings of Ahmed Haji and Hossain (2016), considering
that the study was conducted in the early stages of the IR adoption period – 2011 to 2014 –
and was limited to highly regarded companies and award-winning reports in South Africa.
Thirdly, future studies could include non-financial performance measures as a consequent
variable to determine the extent to which IR has helped the companies to create value
broadly for all stakeholders and not only shareholders. Hopefully, after nearly a decade of IR
implementation, companies have internalized the values that the IIRF brings.
The following could be used to convey the fourth idea for additional investigation.
Companies are progressively aligning their reports with IR requirements as IR practices take
shape. The level and quality of IR have significantly improved over time, according to the
findings of Ahmed Haji and Anifowose (2016), Pistoni et al. (2018) and Agustia et al. (2020),
while some concepts still need to be established. Therefore, future research could explore IR
practice longitudinally, considering there has been a decade of IR implementation.
Regarding the research object, Figure 4 illustrates the distribution of the sample used by
the researchers. Most of them used cross-country studies and South Africa. This cross-
country study involved Africa, Europe, America, Asia and Australasia (Rivera-Arrubla
et al., 2017; Pistoni et al., 2018; Songini et al., 2022). Specifically, there are studies in the
European and South African regions (Gerwanski et al., 2019) and Europe and Asia (Sriani
and Agustia, 2020). In addition, several studies took samples in South Africa as a country
that has the mandatory implementation of IR based on the “apply or explain” principle
(Maroun, 2019; Zhou et al., 2017; Ahmed Haji and Hossain, 2016; Lee and Yeo, 2016; Ahmed
Haji and Anifowose, 2016; Barth et al., 2017; Malola and Maroun, 2019; Wang et al., 2020).
The European region has also attracted the attention of researchers because European
companies are the biggest voluntary adopters of IR in the world (Agustia et al., 2020).
However, only limited researchers have conducted studies in Asia (Cooray et al., 2020;
Pratama et al., 2021), which can be a research gap for future studies on integrated reporting
practices in Asia, considering that many companies in Asia have already adopted IR
 Integrated
Research Object reporting
quality

South Africa
43% 39% European
Asia
Cross-country
4%
1
14%

Figure 4.
Research object
Source: Figure by authors

practices voluntarily. Another gap that future researchers can fill is in the area of
comparative studies between mandatory and voluntary adopters, which are still limited.
Finally, this study identified contingent variables as moderator variables, which are
organizational complexity, external financing needs, firm size and corporate social responsibility.
However, no studies that used IR quality as a contingent variable nor that examined mediating
variables’ role were identified. It could be a research opportunity in the future.

8. Conclusion
This study adds to the body of knowledge on integrated reporting by conducting a
systematic review of the quality of IR. The quantitative method was the most widely used,
and it was primarily archival. The IR quality defined by most studies is consistent with the
IIRC framework. This review summarized and analysed information about the theories,
methods, determinants, effects and moderating variables that researchers have used in
previous studies. In terms of theory, the authors identified the agency, legitimacy and
stakeholder theories as the most widely used by researchers.
Meanwhile, the theories related to proprietary cost, morality, signalling, voluntary
disclosure, impression management, cognitive development, upper echelon, critical mass and
others still need to be investigated further. Regarding the determinants, the authors identified
internal factors (corporate attributes, corporate performance and corporate governance) and
external factors (region, legal systems, national culture, stakeholders’ pressures and media
exposure). As for the consequent variables, this study identified the following: cost of capital,
information asymmetry, analyst forecast, firm value, financial performance, market
performance and tax avoidance. Meanwhile, this study also identified contingency variables
used as moderators, which are organizational complexity, external financing needs, firm size
and corporate social responsibility.
This study makes a significant contribution to research on IR quality by presenting a map
of previous research, identifying gaps and providing suggestions for future research. We
present a map of previous research in a structured manner in the form of a list of variables such
as determinants, consequences and contingents. By constructing such a relationship map, we
provide suggestions for IR quality topics that are still under investigation.
The implications of this study are not only for researchers but also for practitioners and
regulators. For managers, this study can provide a snapshot of the factors that determine
MEDAR the quality of reporting and the effects of the reporting quality so that they can continue to
make quality improvements to their reports. In particular, the results of our study provide
implications for report preparers to continuously incorporate the dimensions of reporting
quality identified in this study as a guide in preparing high-quality reports.
Similar implications also apply to regulators in their efforts to regulate reporting quality,
particularly for public companies. Recently, the IIRF was administered under the IFRS
Foundation with a view to developing high-quality sustainability accounting and disclosure
standards. IIRF is also used to connect financial statements and financial disclosures with
sustainability-related information. Therefore, the International Accounting Standards
Board and International Sustainability Standards Board are jointly responsible for IIRF.
This study has limitations, as is the case with other interpretive studies; these findings are
limited to the researcher’s interpretation of the literature review results. Other researchers
conducting the same literature review may have different interpretations.

References
Abad, C. and Bravo, F. (2018), “Audit committee accounting expertise and forward-looking disclosures:
a study of the US companies”, Management Research Review, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 166-185.
Adams, C.A. (2015), “The international integrated reporting council: a call to action”, Critical
Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 27, pp. 23-28.
Agustia, D., Sriani, D., Wicaksono, H. and Gani, L. (2020), “Integrated reporting quality assessment”,
Journal of Security and Sustainability Issues, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 47-59.
Ahmed Haji, A. and Anifowose, M. (2016), “The trend of integrated reporting practice in South Africa:
ceremonial or substantive?”, Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, Vol. 7
No. 2, pp. 190-224.
Ahmed Haji, A. and Hossain, D.M. (2016), “Exploring the implications of integrated reporting on
organisational reporting practice: evidence from highly regarded integrated reporters”,
Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 415-444.
Amirrudin, M.S., Abdullah, M. and Saleh, Z. (2021), “Voluntary and compulsory integrated reporting:
evidence on reporting quality”, Journal of Emerging Economies and Islamic Research, Vol. 9
No. 3, p. 67.
Barth, M.E., Cahan, S.F., Chen, L. and Venter, E.R. (2017), “The economic consequences associated with
integrated report quality: Capital market and real effects”, Accounting, Organizations and
Society, Vol. 62 No. 2017, pp. 43-64.
Bellucci, M., Cesa Bianchi, D. and Manetti, G. (2022), “Blockchain in accounting practice and research:
systematic literature review”, Meditari Accountancy Research, Vol. 30 No. 7, pp. 121-146.
Busco, C., Frigo, M.L., Riccaboni, A. and Quattrone, P. (2013), “Integrated reporting: concepts and cases
that redefine corporate accountability”, Integrated Reporting, Springer, New York, NY, pp. 1-350.
Caglio, A., Melloni, G. and Perego, P. (2020), “Informational content and assurance of textual disclosures:
evidence on integrated reporting”, European Accounting Review, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 55-83.
Chariri, A. and Januarti, I. (2017), “Audit committee characteristics and integrated reporting: Empirical
study of companies listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange”, European Research Studies
Journal, Vol. XX No. Issue 4B, pp. 305-318.
Chouaibi, J. and Hichri, A. (2021), “Effect of the auditor’s behavioral and individual characteristics on
integrated reporting quality: evidence from European companies”, International Journal of Law
and Management, Vol. 63 No. 2, pp. 195-218.
Chouaibi, S., Chouaibi, Y. and Zouari, G. (2022a), “Board characteristics and integrated reporting
quality: evidence from ESG European companies”, EuroMed Journal of Business, Vol. 17 No. 4,
pp. 425-447.
Chouaibi, J., Belhouchet, S., Almallah, R. and Chouaibi, Y. (2022b), “Do board directors and good Integrated
corporate governance improve integrated reporting quality? The moderating effect of CSR: an
empirical analysis”, EuroMed Journal of Business, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 593-618. reporting
Ciubotariu, M.S., Socoliuc, M., Grosu, V., Mihaila, S. and Cosmulese, C.G. (2021), “Modeling the quality
relationship between integrated reporting quality and sustainable business development”,
Journal of Business Economics and Management, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 1531-1550.
Cooray, T., Gunarathne, A.D.N. and Senaratne, S. (2020), “Does corporate governance affect the quality
of integrated reporting?”, Sustainability (Switzerland), Vol. 12 No. 10.
Cosma, S., Soana, M.G. and Venturelli, A. (2018), “Does the market reward integrated report quality?”,
African Journal of Business Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 78-91.
Cosmulese, C.G., Socoliuc, M., Ciubotariu, M.S., Mihaila, S. and Grosu, V. (2019), “An empirical analysis
of stakeholders’ expectations and integrated reporting quality”, Economic Research-Ekonomska
Istraživanja, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 3963-3986.
Cucari, N. and Mugova, S. (2017), “Corporate sustainability in the tourism sector: is ‘integrated
reporting’ an appropriate strategy?”, Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on
Management Leadership and Governance, ICMLG 2017, pp. 85-92.
de Villiers, C., Rinaldi, L. and Unerman, J. (2014), “Integrated reporting: Insights, gaps and an agenda
for future research”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 27 No. 7,
pp. 1042-1067.
de Villiers, C., Venter, E.R. and Hsiao, P.C.K. (2017), “Integrated reporting: background, measurement
issues, approaches and an agenda for future research”, Accounting and Finance, Vol. 57 No. 4,
pp. 937-959.
Dilling, P.F.A. and Caykoylu, S. (2019), “Determinants of companies that disclose high-quality
integrated reports”, Sustainability (Switzerland), Vol. 11 No. 13.
Donkor, A., Djajadikerta, H.G. and Mat Roni, S. (2021), “Impacts of combined assurance on integrated,
sustainability and financial reporting qualities: evidence from listed companies in South Africa”,
International Journal of Auditing, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 475-507.
Donkor, A., Djajadikerta, H.G., Mat Roni, S. and Trireksani, T. (2022), “Integrated reporting quality and
corporate tax avoidance practices in South Africa’s listed companies”, Sustainability Accounting,
Management and Policy Journal, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 899-928.
Dumay, J., Bernardi, C., Guthrie, J. and Demartini, P. (2016), “Integrated reporting: a structured
literature review”, Accounting Forum, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 166-185.
Erin, O. and Adegboye, A. (2022), “Do corporate attributes impact integrated reporting quality? An
empirical evidence”, Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting, Vol. 20 Nos 3/4, pp. 416-445.
Fasan, M. and Mio, C. (2017), “Fostering stakeholder engagement: the role of materiality disclosure in
integrated reporting”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 288-305.
Freundlieb, M., Gräuler, M. and Teuteberg, F. (2014), “A conceptual framework for the quality
evaluation of sustainability reports”, Management Research Review, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 19-44.
García-Sanchez, I.M. and Noguera-Gamez, L. (2017), “Integrated reporting and stakeholder
engagement: the effect on information asymmetry”, Corporate Social Responsibility and
Environmental Management, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 395-413.
Gerwanski, J., Kordsachia, O. and Velte, P. (2019), “Determinants of materiality disclosure quality in
integrated reporting: empirical evidence from an international setting”, Business Strategy and
the Environment, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 750-770.
Ghani, E.K., Jamal, J., Puspitasari, E. and Gunardi, A. (2018), “Factors influencing integrated reporting
practices among Malaysian public listed real property companies: a sustainable development
effort”, International Journal of Managerial and Financial Accounting, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 144-162.
Gordini, N. and Rancati, E. (2017), “Gender diversity in the Italian boardroom and firm financial
performance”, Management Research Review, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 75-94.
MEDAR Grassmann, M., Fuhrmann, S. and Guenther, T.W. (2019), “Drivers of the disclosed ‘connectivity of the
capitals’: evidence from integrated reports”, Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy
Journal, Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 877-908.
Green, W.J. and Cheng, M.M. (2019), “Materiality judgments in an integrated reporting setting: the effect of
strategic relevance and strategy map”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 73, pp. 1-14.
Hoang, H. and Phang, S.Y. (2021), “How does combined assurance affect the reliability of integrated
reports and investors’ judgments?”, European Accounting Review, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 175-195.
International Integrated Reporting Council (2013), “The international <IR> framework”.
Iredele, O.O. (2019), “Examining the association between quality of integrated reports and corporate
characteristics”, Heliyon, Vol. 5 No. 7, p. e01932.
Krippendorff, K. (2004), Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology, Second Edition, Sage
Publications, New York, NY.
Kunc, M.H., Giorgino, M.C. and Barnabè, F. (2021), “Developing forward-looking orientation in
integrated reporting”, Meditari Accountancy Research, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 823-850.
Lai, A., Melloni, G. and Stacchezzini, R. (2017), “What does materiality mean to integrated reporting
preparers? An empirical exploration”, Meditari Accountancy Research, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 533-552.
Lakshan, A.M.I., Low, M. and de Villiers, C. (2022), “Challenges of, and techniques for, materiality
determination of non-financial information used by integrated report preparers”, Meditari
Accountancy Research, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 626-660.
Lee, K.W. and Yeo, G.H.H. (2016), “The association between integrated reporting and firm valuation”,
Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 1221-1250.
Leukhardt, L., Charifzadeh, M. and Diefenbach, F. (2022), “Does integrated reporting quality matter to
capital markets? Empirical evidence from voluntary adopters”, Corporate Social Responsibility
and Environmental Management, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 1482-1494.
Liberati, A., Altman, D.G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P.C., Ioannidis, J.P.A., Clarke, M.,
Devereaux, P.J., Kleijnen, J. and Moher, D. (2009), “The PRISMA statement for reporting
systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions:
explanation and elaboration”, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Vol. 62 No. 10.
Linnenluecke, M.K., Marrone, M. and Singh, A.K. (2020), “Conducting systematic literature reviews and
bibliometric analyses”, Australian Journal of Management, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 175-194.
Liu, Z., Jubb, C. and Abhayawansa, S. (2019), “Analysing and evaluating integrated reporting: Insights
from applying a normative benchmark”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 235-263.
Malola, A. and Maroun, W. (2019), “The measurement and potential drivers of integrated report quality:
evidence from a pioneer in integrated reporting”, South African Journal of Accounting Research,
Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 114-144.
Mans-Kemp, N. and van der Lugt, C.T. (2020), “Linking integrated reporting quality with sustainability
performance and financial performance in South Africa”, South African Journal of Economic and
Management Sciences, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 1-11.
Maroun, W. (2019), “Does external assurance contribute to higher quality integrated reports?”, Journal
of Accounting and Public Policy, Vol. 38 No. 4, p. 106670.
Matemane, R. and Wentzel, R. (2019), “Integrated reporting and financial performance of South African
listed banks”, Banks and Bank Systems, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 128-139.
Melloni, G., Caglio, A. and Perego, P. (2017), “Saying more with less? Disclosure conciseness,
completeness and balance in integrated reports”, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Vol. 36
No. 3, pp. 220-238.
Minutiello, V. and Tettamanzi, P. (2021), “The quality of nonfinancial voluntary disclosure: a
systematic literature network analysis on sustainability reporting and integrated reporting”,
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 1-18.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J. and Altman, D.G. (2009), “Academia and clinic annals of internal Integrated
medicine preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses”, Annals of
Internal Medicine, Vol. 151 No. 4, pp. 264-269.
reporting
Moloi, T. and Iredele, O. (2020), “Firm value and integrated reporting quality of South African listed
quality
firms”, Academy of Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 19 No. 1.
Paoloni, N., Mattei, G., Dello Strologo, A. and Celli, M. (2020), “The present and future of intellectual
capital in the healthcare sector: a systematic literature review”, Journal of Intellectual Capital,
Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 357-379.
Paternostro, S. (2013), “The connectivity of information for the integrated reporting”, Integrated
Reporting, Springer, New York, NY, pp. 59-77.
Pavlopoulos, A., Magnis, C. and Iatridis, G.E. (2019), “Integrated reporting: an accounting disclosure
tool for high quality financial reporting”, Research in International Business and Finance,
Vol. 49, pp. 13-40.
Piesiewicz, M., Ciechan-Kujawa, M. and Kufel, P. (2021), “Differences in disclosure of integrated reports
at energy and non-energy companies”, Energies, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 1-19.
Pistoni, A., Songini, L. and Bavagnoli, F. (2018), “Integrated reporting quality: an empirical analysis”,
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 489-507.
Pozzoli, M. and Gesuele, B. (2016), “From theory to practice: first adoption of integrated reporting by the
Italian public utilities”, Lecture Notes in Information Systems and Organisation, Vol. 14,
pp. 121-132.
Pratama, A., Tanzil, N.D., Yadiati, W. and Suprijadi, J. (2019), “Designing an integrated reporting
guidance: an initiative to improve environmental and social reporting quality”, Utopia y Praxis
Latinoamericana, Vol. 24, pp. 218-238.
Pratama, A., Yadiati, W., Tanzil, N.D. and Suprijadi, J. (2021), “Integrated reporting in southeast Asia: Does
value creation work?”, Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 57-68.
Raimo, N., Caragnano, A., Mariani, M. and Vitolla, F. (2022), “Integrated reporting quality and cost of
debt financing”, Journal of Applied Accounting Research, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 122-138.
Raimo, N., Vitolla, F., Marrone, A. and Rubino, M. (2020), “The role of ownership structure in integrated
reporting policies”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 2238-2250.
Raimo, N., Vitolla, F., Marrone, A. and Rubino, M. (2021), “Do audit committee attributes influence
integrated reporting quality? An agency theory viewpoint”, Business Strategy and the
Environment, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 522-534.
Rivera-Arrubla, Y.A., Zorio-Grima, A. and García-Benau, M.A. (2017), “Integrated reports: Disclosure
level and explanatory factors”, Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 155-176.
Sciulli, N. and Adhariani, D. (2022), “The use of integrated reports to enhance stakeholder engagement”,
Journal of Accounting and Organizational Change, Vol. 19 No. 3.
Songini, L., Pistoni, A., Tettamanzi, P., Fratini, F. and Minutiello, V. (2022), “Integrated reporting
quality and BoD characteristics: an empirical analysis”, Journal of Management and
Governance, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 579-620.
Sriani, D. and Agustia, D. (2020), “Does voluntary integrated reporting reduce information asymmetry?
Evidence from Europe and Asia”, Heliyon, Vol. 6 No. 12, p. e05602.
Stent, W. and Dowler, T. (2015), “Early assessments of the gap between integrated reporting and
current corporate reporting”, Meditari Accountancy Research, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 92-117.
Tweedie, D., Nielsen, C. and Martinov-Bennie, N. (2018), “The business model in integrated reporting:
evaluating concept and application”, Australian Accounting Review, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 405-420.
Vitolla, F., Raimo, N. and Rubino, M. (2019c), “Appreciations, criticisms, determinants, and effects of
integrated reporting: a systematic literature review”, Corporate Social Responsibility and
Environmental Management, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 518-528.
MEDAR Vitolla, F., Raimo, N. and Rubino, M. (2020a), “Board characteristics and integrated reporting quality:
an agency theory perspective”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,
Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 1152-1163.
Vitolla, F., Raimo, N., Rubino, M. and Garzoni, A. (2019a), “How pressure from stakeholders affects
integrated reporting quality”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,
Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 1591-1606.
Vitolla, F., Raimo, N., Rubino, M. and Garzoni, A. (2019b), “The impact of national culture on integrated
reporting quality. A stakeholder theory approach”, Business Strategy and the Environment,
Vol. 28 No. 8, pp. 1558-1571.
Vitolla, F., Raimo, N., Rubino, M. and Garzoni, A. (2020b), “The determinants of integrated reporting
quality in financial institutions”, Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in
Society, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 429-444.
Vitolla, F., Salvi, A., Raimo, N., Petruzzella, F. and Rubino, M. (2020c), “The impact on the cost of equity
capital in the effects of integrated reporting quality”, Business Strategy and the Environment,
Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 519-529.
Wang, R., Zhou, S. and Wang, T. (2020), “Corporate governance, integrated reporting and the use of
credibility-enhancing mechanisms on integrated reports”, European Accounting Review, Vol. 29
No. 4, pp. 631-663.
Zhou, S., Simnett, R. and Green, W. (2017), “Does integrated reporting matter to the capital market?”,
Abacus, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 94-132.
Zúñiga, F., Pincheira, R., Walker, J. and Turner, M. (2020), “The effect of integrated reporting quality on
market liquidity and analyst forecast error”, Accounting Research Journal, Vol. 33 Nos 4/5,
pp. 635-650.

Corresponding author
Bambang Tjahjadi can be contacted at: bambang.tjahjadi@feb.unair.ac.id
 Authors/
No. year Journal title Article title Theoretical frameworks Research context Method
Appendix
1 Donkor et al. Sustainability Integrated reporting quality and Legitimacy theory South Africa Archival
(2022) Accounting, corporate tax avoidance practices in
Management and South Africa’s listed companies
Policy Journal
2 Minutiello Corporate Social The quality of nonfinancial voluntary Stakeholder theory, Articles from Web of Science, Systematic
and Responsibility and disclosure: a systematic literature impression management Google Scholar and Scopus literature
Tettamanzi Environmental network analysis on sustainability theory, legitimacy theory database review
(2021) Management reporting and integrated reporting
3 Ciubotariu Journal of Business Modeling the relationship between Not specified IR examples database (South Archival
et al. (2021) Economics and integrated reporting quality and America, North America and
Management sustainable business development Europe)
4 Chouaibi International Journal Effect of the auditor’s behavioral and Theory of moral and European industrial Archival
and Hichri of Law and individual characteristics on cognitive development, companies
(2021) Management integrated reporting quality: evidence theory of legitimacy
from European companies
5 Chouaibi EuroMed Journal of Do board directors and good The agency theory, the European firms selected from Archival
et al. (2022b) Business corporate governance improve theory of legitimacy and STOXX 600 index
integrated reporting quality? The the theory of
moderating effect of CSR: an stakeholders
empirical analysis
6 Raimo et al. Journal of Applied Integrated reporting quality and cost Not specified European listed firms Archival
(2022) Accounting Research of debt financing
7 Erin and Journal of Financial Do corporate attributes impact Legitimacy theory and Top 100 listed firms in South Archival
Adegboye Reporting and integrated reporting quality? An stakeholder theory Africa
(2022) Accounting empirical evidence
8 Chouaibi EuroMed Journal of Board characteristics and integrated The theory of the European companies selected Archival
et al. (2022a) Business reporting quality: evidence from ESG moralist current and from the environmental,
European companies legitimacy, the signal social and governance (ESG)
theory and the agency index
theory
(continued)
reporting

Summary of the
Table A1.
quality
Integrated

studies analysed
 Table A1.
MEDAR
Authors/
No. year Journal title Article title Theoretical frameworks Research context Method

9 Songini et al. Journal of Integrated reporting quality and BoD Stakeholder theory, Companies’ integrated Archival
(2022) Management and characteristics: an empirical analysis agency theory, upper reports from “Getting
Governance echelons theory, critical Started” of IIRC website
mass theory and token (Anglo–Saxon countries,
theory Europe and other
countries)
10 Raimo et al. Business Strategy and Do audit committee attributes Agency theory 125 International firms Archival
(2021) the Environment influence integrated reporting
quality? An agency theory viewpoint
11 Piesiewicz Energies Differences in disclosure of integrated Not specified Listed companies in Poland Archival
et al. (2021) reports at energy and non-energy
companies
12 Amirrudin Journal of Emerging Voluntary and compulsory integrated Not specified International companies Archival
et al. (2021) Economies and Islamic reporting: evidence on reporting listed on the International
Research quality Integrated Reporting Council
(IIRC) websites
13 Donkor et al. International Journal Impacts of combined assurance on Agency theory Top 100 firms on Archival
(2021) of Auditing integrated, sustainability and Johannesburg Stock
financial reporting qualities: evidence Exchange
from listed companies in South Africa
14 Pratama Academic Journal of Integrated reporting in Southeast Legitimacy theory, All listed companies in Archival
et al. (2021) Interdisciplinary Asia: Does value creation work? political cost theory Indonesia, Malaysia,
Studies Singapore, Thailand and
Philippines
15 Sriani and Heliyon Does voluntary integrated reporting Agency theory, adverse Europe and Asia Archival
Agustia reduce information asymmetry? selection theory
(2020) Evidence from Europe and Asia
16 Zúñiga et al. Accounting Research The effect of integrated reporting Economic-based theory South Africa Archival
(2020) Journal quality on market liquidity and
analyst forecast error
17 Agustia Journal of Security and Integrated reporting quality Proprietary cost theory European Archival
et al. (2020) Sustainability Issues assessment and agency theory
(continued)
 Authors/
No. year Journal title Article title Theoretical frameworks Research context Method

18 Cooray et al. Sustainability Does corporate governance affect the Agency theory Sri Lanka Archival
(2020) quality of integrated reporting?
19 Vitolla et al. Corporate Governance The determinants of integrated Stakeholder theory Financial institutions in 20 Archival
(2020a, reporting quality in financial different countries
2020b, institutions
2020c)
20 Vitolla et al. Corporate Social Board characteristics and integrated Agency theory International firms in five Archival
(2020a) Responsibility and reporting quality: an agency theory continents and 26 countries
Environmental perspective
Management
21 Moloi and Academy of Strategic Firm value and integrated reporting Agency theory and South Africa Archival
Iredele Management Journal quality of South African listed firms voluntary disclosure
(2020) theory
22 Vitolla et al. Business Strategy and The impact on the cost of equity Not specified Africa, America, Asia, Archival
(2020c) the Environment capital in the effects of integrated Europe and Oceania
reporting quality
23 Mans-Kemp South African Journal Linking integrated reporting quality Legitimacy theory South Africa Archival
and van der of Economic and with sustainability performance and
Lugt (2020) Management Sciences financial performance in South Africa
24 Wang et al. European Accounting Corporate governance, integrated Agency theory, South Africa Archival
(2020) Review reporting and the use of credibility- stakeholder theory,
enhancing mechanisms on integrated legitimacy theory and
reports resource dependence
theory
25 Raimo et al. Business Strategy and The role of ownership structure in Agency theory International companies Archival
(2020) the Environment integrated reporting policies
26 Vitolla et al. Business Strategy and The impact of national culture on Stakeholder theory International companies from Archival
(2019a, the Environment integrated reporting quality. A the “Leading Practices” and
2019b, stakeholder theory approach “<IR> Reporters” sections of
2019c) the IIRC website
(continued)
reporting

Table A1.
quality
Integrated
 Table A1.
MEDAR

Authors/
No. year Journal title Article title Theoretical frameworks Research context Method

27 Vitolla et al. Corporate Social How pressure from stakeholders Stakeholder theory International companies from Archival
(2019a) Responsibility and affects integrated reporting quality the IIRC website (Europe,
Environmental Asia, America, Africa and
Management Oceania)
28 Dilling and Sustainability Determinants of companies that Agency theory and International companies Archival
Caykoylu disclose high-quality integrated signalling theory
(2019) reports
29 Cosmulese Economic Research- An empirical analysis of Not specified Not specified Archival
et al. (2019) Ekonomska stakeholders’ expectations and
Istraživanja integrated reporting quality
30 Matemane Banks and Bank Integrated reporting and financial Legitimacy theory South African banks Archival
and Wentzel Systems performance of South African listed
(2019) banks
31 Malola and South African Journal The measurement and potential Not specified South Africa Archival
Maroun of Accounting drivers of integrated report quality:
(2019) Research evidence from a pioneer in integrated
reporting
32 Pratama Utopía Y Praxis Designing an integrated reporting Not specified Not specified Qualitative
et al. (2019) Latinoamericana guidance: an initiative to improve
environmental and social reporting
quality
33 Pavlopoulos Research in Integrated reporting: an accounting Stakeholder theory Listed firms from 25 Archival
et al. (2019) International Business disclosure tool for high quality countries
and Finance financial reporting
34 Gerwanski Business Strategy and Determinants of materiality Stakeholder theory European and South African Archival
et al. (2019) the Environment disclosure quality in integrated firms
reporting: empirical evidence from an
international setting
35 Iredele Heliyon Examining the association between Contingency theory and South Africa Archival
(2019) quality of integrated reports and agency theory
corporate characteristics
(continued)
 Authors/
No. year Journal title Article title Theoretical frameworks Research context Method

36 Pistoni et al. Corporate Social Integrated reporting quality: an Proprietary cost theory, Europe, Asia, Africa, South Content
(2018) Responsibility and empirical analysis agency theory and America, Australasia and analysis
Environmental positive accounting North America
Management theory
37 Barth et al. Accounting, The economic consequences Agency theory and South Africa Archival
(2017) Organizations and associated with integrated report behavioural theory
Society quality: capital market and real
effects
38 García- Corporate Social Integrated reporting and stakeholder Agency theory and Companies from 27 countries Archival
Sanchez and Responsibility and engagement: the effect on information information asymmetric
Noguera- Environmental asymmetry theory
Gamez Management
(2017)
39 Cucari and Proceedings of the Corporate sustainability in the Stakeholder theory South Africa Qualitative
Mugova European Conference tourism sector: Is “Integrated
(2017) on Management, Reporting” an appropriate strategy?
Leadership and
Governance
40 Pozzoli and Lecture Notes in From theory to practice: first Neo-institutional theory Selected public utilities Content
Gesuele Information Systems adoption of integrated reporting by companies from ten countries analysis
(2016) and Organisation the Italian public utilities
41 Ahmed Haji Sustainability The trend of integrated reporting Legitimacy theory South African Content
and Accounting, practice in South Africa: ceremonial analysis
Anifowose Management and or substantive?
(2016) Policy Journal
42 Lee and Yeo Review of Quantitative The association between integrated Stockholder theory and South Africa Archival
(2016) Finance and reporting and firm valuation proprietary disclosure
Accounting costs theory
43 Ahmed Haji Qualitative Research in Exploring the implications of Impression management South Africa Qualitative
and Hossain Accounting and integrated reporting on theory
(2016) Management organisational reporting practice:
evidence from highly regarded
integrated reporters
(continued)
reporting

Table A1.
quality
Integrated
 Table A1.
MEDAR

Authors/
No. year Journal title Article title Theoretical frameworks Research context Method

44 Zhou et al. Abacus Does integrated reporting matter to Voluntary disclosure South Africa Archival
(2017) the capital market? theory
45 Rivera- Social Responsibility Integrated reports: disclosure level Institutional theory Africa, America, Asia and Archival
Arrubla Journal and explanatory factors Australia
et al. (2017)
46 Maroun Journal of Accounting Does external assurance contribute to Organizational change South Africa Archival
(2019) and Public Policy higher quality integrated reports? theory