Exploring the meaningfulness of integrated reporting: a framing perspective

Purpose The purpose of the study is to explain why there is a conflict in the meaningfulness of integrated reporting (IR) between International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) and analysts and institutional investors using framing theory and suggest a way forward for a meaningful IR to analysts and institutional investors. Design/methodology/approach The study used qualitative research design in which data was collected from IIRC's document and 21 semi-structured interviews of analysts and fund managers conducted between 2014 and 2015 after the introduction of IIRC framework. This period coincided with prior studies that provide conflicting evidence over the meaningfulness of IR between IIRC and analysts and fund managers. Findings The findings show that the IIRC from inception uses a preparer-centred frame where it predominantly interprets IR as meaningful from the perspective of preparers of information under ideal conditions, and as such also meaningful to fund managers and analysts. On the other hand, the fund managers and analysts from the onset use a user-centred frame where they interpret IR as not meaningful from their perspective as users of the information under pragmatic conditions. The context making it difficult to reconcile the differentiated frames are the timeframe; absence of trust relationship and balance in reporting. Research limitations/implications The study is limited by its qualitative nature meaning that generalisation of findings may not apply. Its data is also limited to IIRC IR Framework, analysts and fund managers as opposed to wider stakeholders. Practical implications The practical implication of the findings suggests that if IR is to be made meaningful to analysts and fund managers, the promoters must reconcile the differentiations in frames employed by both the IIRC, analysts and institutional investors. Without this reconciliation IR may not serve the information needs of the intended primary users. Originality/value The study uses framing theory to show that time frame, emotional connectedness and data financialisation are attributes that make IR to be considered meaningful to analysts and fund managers. In addition, it provides insight into how the use of organisational and market context influences the framing of the meaningfulness of IR.