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

www.emeraldinsight.com/0951-3574.htm

Potential of
It is not always bad news integrated
Illustrating the potential of integrated reporting reporting
using a case study in the eco-tourism industry
Mary-Anne McNally and Warren Maroun 1319
School of Accountancy,
University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to challenge the notion that non-financial reporting is mainly about
impression management or is only a superficial response to the hegemonic challenges posed by the
sustainability movement. It focuses on the most recent development in sustainability reporting (integrated
reporting) as an example of how accounting for financial and non-financial information has the potential to
expand the scope of accounting systems, promote meaningful changes to reporting processes and provide
a broader perspective on value creation.
Design/methodology/approach – The research focuses on an African eco-tourism company which
has its head office in South Africa. A case study method is used to highlight differences in the
presentation of an integrated business model according to the case entity’s integrated reports
and how individual preparers interpret the requirement to prepare those reports. Data are collected
using detailed interviews with all staff members involved in the preparation process. These
are complemented by a review of the minutes of the company’s sustainability workshops and
integrated reports.
Findings – A decision by the case organisation to prepare an integrated report gives rise to different forms of
resistance which limits the change potential of the integrated reporting initiative. Resistance does not,
however, preclude reform. Even when individual preparers are critical of the changes to the corporate
reporting environment, accounting for financial and non-financial information expands the scope of
the conventional accounting system which facilitates broader management control and promotes a more
integrated conception of “value”.
Research limitations/implications – Integrated reporting should not be dismissed as only an exercise in
corporate reporting and disclosure; it has a transformative potential which, given time, can enable new ways
of managing business processes and articulating value creation.
Originality/value – This study answers the calls for primary evidence on how the requirement or
recommendation to prepare an integrated report is being interpreted and applied by individual
preparers. The findings add to the limited body of interpretive research on the change potential of
new reporting frameworks. In doing so, the research provides theoretical support for developing
arguments which challenge the conventional position that integrated reporting is little more than an
exercise in impression management.
Keywords Integrated reporting, Sustainability reporting, Organisational change, Internal process,
Logics of resistance, Reporting systems
Paper type Case study

1. Introduction
The last three decades have seen an exponential increase in the extent of environmental,
social and governance (ESG) information being reported to stakeholders under the broad
heading of “sustainability reporting” (KPMG, 2011; Stubbs and Higgins, 2014). The release
of the International Integrated Reporting Council’s (IIRC, 2013) framework on integrated
reporting is the most recent development in this area.

The authors would like to thank the members of the CESAR and Meditari Conferences (2016 and 2017) for Accounting, Auditing &
their comments on early version of this paper. Special thanks also go to Professors Garnett, de Beer, Farneti Accountability Journal
Vol. 31 No. 5, 2018
and Padia. The authors would also like to thank Lelys Maddock for her views. Finally, the researchers pp. 1319-1348
acknowledge the British Academy and Newton Foundation for partial funding of this project. This paper © Emerald Publishing Limited
0951-3574
forms part of a special section “Case study insights from the implementation of integrated reporting”. DOI 10.1108/AAAJ-05-2016-2577
AAAJ The integrated report is not intended to be an amalgamation of the financial statements
31,5 and sustainability (or similar) report (Stubbs and Higgins, 2014). As explained by the IIRC
(2013, para. 33), integrated reporting is:
A process founded on integrated thinking that results in a periodic integrated report by an
organization about value creation over time and related communications regarding aspects of value
creation. An integrated report is a concise communication about how an organization’s strategy,
1320 governance, performance and prospects, in the context of its external environment, leads to the
creation of value over the short, medium and long term.
This means that the integrated report is, ideally, a representation of a complex and
interconnected approach to managing different types of capital actively in order to create
value (King, 2012). In other words, as explained by Stubbs and Higgins (2014), Eccles et al.
(2012) and Eccles and Krzus (2010), integrated reporting is of strategic importance for an
organisation and should drive significant organisational change.
Few studies have, however, examined the nature of these changes in detail. For example,
several studies/technical reports deal with the integrated report content and, in particular, how
the extent of ESG information being communicated by companies has increased after the
adoption of the International Integrated Reporting Council’s (IIRC) framework (Solomon and
Maroun, 2012; PwC, 2015; Raemaekers et al., 2016). Researchers have also considered the
limitations of early examples of integrated reports (mainly in South Africa and Australia) and
offered recommendations for practitioners (Atkins and Maroun, 2015; Stent and Dowler, 2015;
De Villiers et al., 2017; du Toit et al., 2017). This has been complemented by studies examining,
for example, the value relevance of integrated reporting (de Klerk and de Villiers, 2012;
Marcia et al., 2015; Bernardi and Stark, 2016; de Villiers and Marques, 2016; Barth et al., 2017);
the impact of different country-level determinants on the decision to prepare an integrated
report ( Jensen and Berg, 2012) and the importance of institutional theory to explain observed
changes in disclosure practices (Bebbington et al., 2009; de Villiers and Alexander, 2014;
Higgins et al., 2014). Nevertheless, “the approaches and internal mechanisms” being employed
by integrated reporting adopters and the resulting internal mechanisms of change remain
poorly understood (Stubbs and Higgins, 2014, p. 1069; De Villiers et al., 2017; Guthrie et al.,
2017). This provided a basis for the purpose of this research.
The paper examines integrated reporting practices at a medium-sized African
eco-tourism firm (Safari[1]) which has its head office in South Africa. Detailed interviews
with preparers of the company’s integrated reports are used to highlight how the case
organisation alters its corporate reporting processes after a decision to adopt the IIRC’s
framework and how this contributes to a broader understanding of value creation. This is
done by drawing on theories of organisational change (Laughlin, 1991; Larrinaga-Gonzalez
and Bebbington, 2001) and logics of resistance (Tremblay and Gendron, 2011; Durocher and
Gendron, 2014) complemented by the prior research which shows the interconnection
between sustainability accounting systems and sustainability performance (Alrazi et al.,
2015; de Villiers et al., 2016).
In terms of Laughlin’s (1991) model of organisational change, the board of directors’
decision to adopt the IIRC’s framework is interpreted as an external shock. This is because
integrated reporting should shift the emphasis from conventional financial measures of
performance to a more comprehensive account of how the entity manages multiple types of
capital in order to generate sustainable returns (Eccles et al., 2012; Atkins and Maroun, 2015;
King, 2016). Nevertheless, the case organisation does not experience immediate and
far-reaching changes to its reporting processes. The study shows how variations in
individual preparers’ understanding and application of integrated reporting principles
influence changes to reporting systems.
A logic of resistance (Tremblay and Gendron, 2011) cannot, however, prevent change.
Even when preparers are critical of developments in the corporate reporting, there is evidence
of a widening of the scope of the conventional accounting system to incorporate additional Potential of
non-financial metrics. The expansion and formalisation of this accounting system reveals new integrated
fields of management control and intervention (Melnyk et al., 2003; Alrazi et al., 2015; de Villiers reporting
et al., 2016) which may, in turn, promote a broader conception of “value” by the case entity.
Highlighting the change potential of integrated reporting makes an important practical
contribution. The research should be relevant for practitioners, standard setters and
regulators interested in the benefits of integrated reporting and wanting to understand the 1321
implications of adopting the IIRC’s framework for internal reporting processes. At the
theoretical and empirical level, the research is among the first to offer primary evidence on
logics of resistance in an integrated reporting context. In addition, the study adds to the
limited body of interpretive research on integrated reporting. It provides a first-hand account
of the interaction between morphostatic and morphogenetic change at the organisational level
(Laughlin, 1991; Gray et al., 1995; Stubbs and Higgins, 2014) and logics of resistance and
variations in epistemic commitment at the level of the individual preparer (see Cooper and
Robson, 2006; Tremblay and Gendron, 2011; Durocher and Gendron, 2014). This complements
a large body of research which argues that sustainability reporting has a limited impact on
internal organisational dynamics (e.g. Gray et al., 1995; Adams and McNicholas, 2007; Adams
and Frost, 2008; Bebbington et al., 2009; Vinnari and Laine, 2013). This paper reaches a more
optimistic conclusion: that integrated reporting can serve as a mechanism of positive change
and should not be dismissed too readily as just another example of impression management
(see Guthrie et al., 2017; Atkins and Maroun, 2018; Atkins et al., 2018).
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows: Section 2 discusses integrated
reporting and presents the new reporting framework as a change mechanism. Section 3
provides the study’s theoretical basis. Sections 4 and 5 present details on the case
organisation and method, respectively. Results are in Section 6. Section 7 concludes and
identifies areas for future research.

2. Integrated reporting
According to the IIRC (2013, para. 1.7), “the primary purpose of an integrated report is to
explain to providers of financial capital how an organization creates value over time”.
Some critical theorists have argued that this has resulted in a loss of focus on a genuine
sustainability in favour of preserving a finance-centric reporting system (see Brown and Dillard,
2014; Adams, 2015; Flower, 2015). The influence of large accounting firms and corporations
means that “value” remains a financial consideration rather than something relevant for a broad
group of stakeholders. The resulting business case framing of integrated reporting limits its
change potential and may, paradoxically, promote unsustainable business practices (Brown
and Dillard, 2014; Cheng et al., 2014; Stubbs and Higgins, 2014). This position is supported by
reviews of internal reporting practices at early adopters of the IIRC’s framework (mainly from
Australia and South Africa) and the disclosures included in their integrated reports.
Stubbs and Higgins (2014), for example, find that business processes are largely unaltered
by the integrated reporting initiative. Finance and strategy personnel play the leading role in
preparing the integrated report and interpreting non-financial information, limiting the
understanding of the value relevance of environmental, social and cultural considerations.
As a result, the researchers question if integrated reporting can promote a real change in
business mindsets and empowering a sustainability agenda. It is possible that companies
prepare integrated reports only to signal conformance with what is perceived to be an
emerging (but already institutionalised) global reporting framework or to provide a corporate
narrative which can respond to the hegemonic challenges posed by the sustainability
movement while ensuring that investors’ interests remain the primary consideration
(see Bebbington et al., 2009; Vinnari and Laine, 2013; de Villiers and Alexander, 2014; Higgins
et al., 2014; Tregidga et al., 2014; Atkins, Solomon, Norton and Joseph, 2015).
AAAJ In this context, PwC (2015) finds that many corporates struggle with collecting
31,5 non-financial information and incorporating it with financial perspectives on firms’
performance. Similarly, Raemaekers et al. (2016), examining risk disclosures by leading
South African organisations, report that information is often generic and does not always
provide a balanced perspective of material risks associated with different types of capital
and how these are being managed. There is also significant repetition of information
1322 included in integrated reports (Solomon and Maroun, 2012; PwC, 2014; Stent and Dowler,
2015) and some indication of so-called non-financial information being used to manage
stakeholder expectations, rather than to drive substantive changes in business processes
(Carels et al., 2013; de Villiers and Alexander, 2014). As a result, changes to reporting
systems and the way in which value is being framed in corporate reports may only reflect a
superficial transition to a different report format and not the beginning of a paradigm shift
in business logic (de Villiers et al., 2014; Stubbs and Higgins, 2014).
This paper challenges this position. As noted earlier, the IIRC’s may have been influenced
by the motives of capitalist institutions (Brown and Dillard, 2014; Flower, 2015) and,
undoubtedly, some companies will make use of an integrated or sustainability report to
manage impressions, conceal unsustainable business practices and defend a business-as-usual
position (Solomon et al., 2013; Brown and Dillard, 2014; Flower, 2015). Concluding that the
sustainability project has been abandoned and that non-financial reporting is always
characterised by impression management may, however, be overly negative.
There is at least some evidence of sustainability and integrated reporting focusing
attention on non-financial outcomes and heightening the need for corporates to engage on
pressing social and environmental concerns (see Gray et al., 1995; Adams and Frost, 2008;
Brennan and Merkl-Davies, 2014; Atkins and Maroun, 2015). For example, Adams and Frost
(2008, p. 300) find that there are challenges to incorporating sustainability issues in
management practices but that “the desire to report [sustainability] data externally has led
to developments in data collection systems and the integration of social and environmental
performance data into decision-making, risk management and performance measurement”.
Similarly, Atkins et al. (2016) argue that non-financial disclosures included in integrated
and/or sustainability reports are part of a genuine effort to inform stakeholders about the
importance of environmental issues (such as extinction of species, habitat destruction and
biodiversity loss) and to promote changes in business practice and consumer behaviour
(see also Siddiqui, 2013; Samkin et al., 2014; Atkins, Atkins, Thomson and Maroun, 2015).
In other words, consistent with Hopwood’s (1987) conceptualisation of accounting systems
as being able to reflect and influence prevailing social and institutional perspectives,
accounting (including integrated reporting) has a potential for change which can drive
corporate sustainability.
Gray et al. (1995) reach a similar conclusion. They find that, where firms are under
pressure to accept responsibility for environmental issues, organisational cultures and
processes are changing. Firm infrastructures are more susceptible to demands for changes
in business models and reporting in order to ensure prudent management of natural
resources. This implies that the growing demand for ESG disclosures and emerging
integrated reporting agenda has the potential to alter an organisation’s boundaries, giving
rise to an enhanced accounting function which promotes new lines of organisational
visibility, improved understanding of processes and enhanced accountability (see Llewellyn,
1994; Massa et al., 2015).
Giving additional ESG disclosures to manage impressions (see Tregidga et al., 2014; Cho
et al., 2015) provides only part of the explanation for the proliferation of sustainability and
integrated reporting (see Hughen et al., 2014; KPMG, 2015). There is a growing body of
research pointing to the value relevance of so-called non-financial information typically
included in integrated or sustainability reports (de Klerk and de Villiers, 2012; de Villiers
and Marques, 2016) and the role of high-quality integrated reports for genuinely improving Potential of
stakeholder relations and enhancing credibility (de Villiers et al., 2014; Atkins and Maroun, integrated
2015). This may be especially true in South Africa where the local stock exchange requires reporting
listed companies to prepare an integrated report or to provide reasons for not doing so and
the Code for Responsible Investing in South Africa encourages institutional investors to
incorporate ESG metrics in their investment analysis process[2] (IOD, 2011; Atkins and
Maroun, 2014). 1323
In this context, both academic and professional reports show prolonged changes in the
extent of non-financial information being reported to users and an awareness of the
importance of incorporating related indicators into business models, strategic analysis and
risk assessments (Solomon and Maroun, 2012; Carels et al., 2013; PwC, 2014, 2015).
These analyses stop short of providing detailed insights into organisational change
processes at work. Nevertheless, a concerted effort to provide more integrated accounts of
how organisations are generating value implies that leading South African corporates are
internalising changing stakeholder expectations for more balanced reporting. While there
are weaknesses in South African integrated reports (see, e.g. PwC, 2015; Raemaekers et al.,
2016), there is at least some evidence of integrated reporting becoming part of
comprehensive reporting philosophy which is aligned with more integrated assessments of
business models, organisational risk and the value creation process (King, 2012, 2016; PwC,
2015). This is in keeping with the integrated reporting framework, which, if implemented
sincerely, results in a corporate report which:
[…] incorporates, in clear language, material information […] to enable stakeholders to evaluate the
organisation’s performance and to make an informed assessment about its ability to create and
sustain value. An integrated report should provide stakeholders with a concise overview of an
organisation, integrating and connecting important information about strategy, risks and
opportunities and relating them to social, environmental, economic and financial issues. By
its very nature an integrated report cannot simply be a reporting by-product. It needs to flow from
the heart of the organisation and it should be the organisation’s primary report to
stakeholders (Mervyn King’s foreword, Integrated Reporting Committee of South Africa
(IRCSA), 2011, p. 1, emphasis added).
Integrated reports may have limitations but there is also potential to widen the scope of the
financial reporting function, construct new fields of organisational accountability and alter
business mindsets (see Gray et al., 1995; Gallhofer and Haslam, 2003; Adams and Frost,
2008; Stubbs and Higgins, 2014). To explore this possibility in more detail, Lauglin’s (1991)
theory of organisational change is used to frame an analysis of integrated reporting by an
African eco-tourism company. The paper focuses specifically on how preparers interpret
and react to the requirement to prepare an integrated report as indicative of either an
emerging commitment or resistance to the new report format and the extent of change to
reporting systems experienced by the case entity.

3. Theoretical framework: accounting for organisational change

According to Laughlin (1991), the core processes of the firm, its culture, mission and
operating ethos can be viewed as interpretive schemes which represent fundamental
assumptions about or views of the organisation and define how it reacts to different
situations. Core operating policies, decision-making processes, lines of communication
and the organisation of the firm represent its design archetype (Ouchi, 1979). Physical
processes, infrastructure and the organisation’s human capital are examples of underlying
sub-systems (Laughlin, 1991).
According to this framework, the tangible “components” of a firm derive coherence and
credibility, not only by virtue of their technical functions or physical properties, but also as a
result of the constitution of the firm according to structures, designs or frameworks which
AAAJ align with prevailing values, preconceptions and beliefs (Laughlin, 1991). Even if there is
31,5 some uncertainty or disagreement about specific aspects of the firm, its interpretive
schemes, design archetypes and sub-systems interact in a dynamic manner and give rise to
a primary perspective or view of the firm which remains reasonably constant unless there is
a material disturbance (Laughlin, 1991).

1324 3.1 Change at the firm level

While the exact means by which change occurs can be complex, the effects of a disturbance
can either be morphostatic or morphogenetic. The latter involves “making things to look
different while remaining basically as they have always been” (Smith, 1982, p. 318). As a
result, “first-order change” may yield some variation in the sub-systems of the organisation
and, at the extreme, the design archetype but the interpretive schemes are seldom altered.
Laughlin (1991) identifies two forms of first-order change: rebuttal and reorientation.
Firms often employ homeostatic control systems which rely on defensive mechanisms to
refute external challenges and the need for change as part of a rebuttal strategy for reacting
to external shocks. Where some change is unavoidable, the firm can react to external
pressures by reorienting its design infrastructure and sub-systems but in a manner which
does not significantly influence its fundamental nature. Consequently, any initial changes
may be reversed as the organisation returns to its original state (Laughlin, 1991; Gray et al.,
1995; Adams and McNicholas, 2007).
In contrast, morphogenesis alters the very core of the organisation with significant
implications for its functions, design and interpretive schematics. Colonisation and
evolution are examples of morphogenetic or second-order change mechanisms (Laughlin,
1991; Stubbs and Higgins, 2014). Colonisation occurs where changes are forced on the
organisation and lead to alterations to the design archetype followed by reformulation of
sub-systems and interpretive schemes. Evolutionary change mechanisms are similar to
colonisation except that change is the result of the choices by the organisation’s participants
rather than of coercive pressures[3] (Laughlin, 1991). Table I summarises the different forms
of organisational change.
These change types are useful for categorising an organisation’s reaction to external
developments, including, for example, how an entity responds to changes in reporting
requirements (Gray et al., 1995; Adams and McNicholas, 2007; Stubbs and Higgins, 2014).
As pointed out by Laughlin (1991), the change mechanisms are, however, only broad
outlines of the change “pathways” (p. 209). In addition, they apply at the firm level and do
not explain how external events (such as the release of new reporting frameworks or
regulations) are interpreted and acted on by the individuals making up the organisation.
To consider this, this study complements the organisational change process by considering
the relevance of logics of resistance.

Change type Strategy Description

No change Inertia Change avoided

First-order change (morphostatic) Rebuttal Change resisted or only minor changes expected
Reorientation Changes to systems or processes may occur but not to
the ethos or heart of the organisation
Table I. Second-order change (morphogenetic) Colonisation Substantive change forced on the organisation
Laughlin’s typology Evolution Substantive changes adopted and driven by all of the
of organisation members of the organisation
change Sources: Laughlin (1991), Gray et al. (1995) and Stubbs and Higgins (2014)
3.2 Change at the individual level Potential of
Regulation has become a defining feature of contemporary corporate governance systems integrated
(Black, 2008; Malsch and Gendron, 2011) and, in terms of Laughlin’s (1991) framework, can reporting
be thought of as an external shock which results in either morphostatic or morphogenetic
change at the organisational level. Prescriptions do not, however, have a clear or
deterministic impact on the individual’s behaviour because, as explained by Tremblay and
Gendron (2011, p. 262), human beings have a “margin of manoeuvre which they can use to 1325
invent responses depending on the circumstances of the system in which they are situated”.
This means that any reforms introduced by the organisation in response to an external
change can be interpreted differently by employees who have the discretion to decide how
the event is understood and what action should be taken (see also Cooper and Robson, 2006;
Malsch and Gendron, 2011).
For example, the management accounting literature provides a number of cases
illustrating how organisations react to external developments which give rise to a need for
higher levels of efficiency, standardised operating procedures and enhanced management
control by implementing different accounting systems. These are designed to monitor
performance, allow for remedial interventional and hold individuals accountable for
non-conformance (Hoskin and Macve, 1986; Walsh and Stewart, 1993; Cowton and Dopson,
2002). Nevertheless, while “discipline by the numbers” has some effect on controlling
employees’ behaviour (Miller and O’Leary, 1987; Mennicken and Miller, 2012), there is also
“considerable variation” in how individuals interpret the new systems and scope for
different methods of circumventing unwanted monitoring and review by senior
management (Cowton and Dopson, 2002, p. 206). The financial reporting and auditing
research provides a similar account.
The proliferation of auditing and accounting regulation is often attributed to repeated
corporate scandals eroding confidence in the financial reporting and auditing systems
(Unerman and O’Dwyer, 2004; Malsch and Gendron, 2011). New prescriptions, even when
supported at the professional or organisational level, do not always have the intended effect.
Individual accountants and auditors may hold conflicting views on the changes to laws and
regulations and this leads to legalistic application of requirements (McMillan, 2004; Roberts,
2009; Tremblay and Gendron, 2011), innovative ways to by-pass regulations (Brivot and
Gendron, 2011; van Zijl and Maroun, 2017) and, in some cases, express non-compliance
(Maroun and Atkins, 2014).
The conflict between prescriptions (which are formally adopted by the respective firm)
and the extent of acceptance and implementation by its agents is the result of both formal
and informal trails of strength (Cooper and Robson, 2006; Tremblay and Gendron, 2011).
This involves individuals – whether intentional or otherwise – referring to particular
viewpoints, knowledge bases, discourses or logics with which they identify to test new rules,
regulations or requirements. Based on this subjective assessment, they decide either to
subscribe wholeheartedly to the changes implemented by their organisation or not
(Tremblay and Gendron, 2011; Vinnari and Laine, 2013; Durocher and Gendron, 2014).
Where individual employees lack an epistemic commitment to required or imposed changes,
a logic of resistance takes hold. This can be evidenced by superficial or symbolic adherence
to new requirements (Meyer and Rowan, 1977); rejection of the value/benefits of proposed
changes (Durocher and Gendron, 2014); acceptance of the rationale for the new requirements
while distancing themselves or their firms from any events or circumstances which require
reform (Tremblay and Gendron, 2011) and complete rejection of proposed changes.
A logic of resistance not only provides a useful framework for explaining how
individuals react to change but also complements Laughlin’s (1991) model. Changes may be
forced on the organisation or taken at the executive level and imposed on different parts of
the firm (a colonisation event) with the aim of altering design archetypes, sub-systems and
AAAJ interpretive schemes. Where the expected second-order change does not result, a logic of
31,5 resistance provides a possible explanation. Employees face coercive pressures to adhere to
the requirements of their superiors but can still lack a complete understanding of or
commitment to the required changes (Tremblay and Gendron, 2011; Durocher and Gendron,
2014). In these instances, reorientation of design infrastructures and sub-systems becomes a
useful strategy for demonstrating compliance while retaining the fundamental nature of the
1326 business process and systems to which the employees are accustomed. In other instances,
resistance is not complete. As the implications of initial first-order changes become better
understood and individuals begin to realise the possible benefits of these developments,
attitudes may start to shift and resistance may be replaced by the beginning of
morphogenetic change (consider Melnyk et al., 2003; Alrazi et al., 2015).
To explore the interaction between organisational change and logics of resistance in
more detail, we focus on a group of preparers tasked by their directors with compiling their
firm’s integrated reports. This is a small group of individuals who meet regularly with one
another to discuss the reporting requirements (at a number of workshops) but the group is
made up of people with different technical expertise and, as a result, different views on the
relevance of financial and non-financial reporting. Consequently, the decision by their board
of directors to prepare an integrated report should give rise to trials of strength where
individual preparers, subscribing to different knowledge bases, interpret the requirement to
prepare an integrated report and arrive at conclusions which are not entirely consistent with
their firm’s official position on integrated reporting. Resistance to the new
reporting requirements tempers the extent of second-order change which we examine by
focusing specifically on modifications to reporting systems. Contemporaneously, as the
accounting function is widened to cater for the additional information required for the case
entity’s integrated report, we consider how the data collection process changes and how
the information produced by the expanded accounting infrastructure is employed by
management. Where there is evidence of a connection between reporting systems and
positive performance – referred to as proactivity by Alrazi et al. (2015) and Melnyk et al.
(2003) – this may be indicative of the beginning of second-order change.

4. The case organisation

Safari’s goal is to share the wild areas of Africa with guests from all over the world while at
the same time helping to ensure the future protection of Africa’s spectacular wildlife heritage
and to improve the lives of local communities living in the areas in which it operates.
The business is currently supported by a growing local and international market of
travellers. The company employs over 2,000 people from different ethnic groups.
It hosts approximately 35,000 guests each year and operates in eight African countries
(including South Africa) on almost three million hectares of Africa’s wildlife reserves and
private concessions.
The company is organised into five operating units (by geographical location) each
under the supervision of a managing director with direct access to the chief executive
officer. The business units also make use of a conservation and community and culture
manager who provide direction on the application of different sustainability initiatives,
including the collection of data used to prepare the integrated report. The conservation and
community and culture manager also report to the chief sustainability officer who has
access to the Board Directors and Sustainability Committee[4]. The Sustainability
Committee is a five-member team with relevant expertise in sustainability-related issues and
is responsible for monitoring and review of “sustainable business practices in the
dimensions of conservation, community, culture and commerce (the 4Cs)” which “form the
sustainability platform for the business” (Integrated Report, 2015). (This sustainability
strategy was adopted in 2010.)
 According to the Integrated Report (2015), sustainability is “built into the very DNA” of the Potential of
organisation. Sustainability specialists ( focused on the 4Cs) are responsible for defining the integrated
content of the report, based on the aspects they believe to be most material for stakeholders. reporting
The Company’s stakeholders were identified and defined at the outset of the integrated
reporting process. In addition to providers of financial capital, these include communities
and the African governments. The company is dependent on these stakeholders
for ensuring effective conservation of wilderness areas and being able to operate on 1327
local concessions.
Since 2010, the Company has held regular sustainability workshops to ensure that
preparers review the application of the firm’s strategy, identify stakeholders correctly and
remain focused on material issues. These workshops have been approved by the
Sustainability Committee which has been tasked by the board of directors to supervise all
relevant sustainability issues. The sustainability workshops are open to Safari’s employees
and are attended by the teams responsible for the preparation of the integrated report.

5. Method
The research uses a case study method. The case organisation has its head office in South
Africa and complies with that country’s corporate reporting requirements. This was useful
for the purpose of this research because South Africa was the first country to adopt an
integrated reporting framework and has a well-established stakeholder-centric corporate
governance model, providing an established reporting environment which is suitable for
exploring the change potential of integrated reporting (de Villiers et al., 2014; Atkins and
Maroun, 2015).
The researchers focused specifically on a firm in the eco-tourism sector because the link
between social and environmental capital and the generation of financial returns is clearer
than in other business models. Second, the firm is a medium-sized one which has formal
stakeholder relations in place, particularly with local communities and governments owning
the land on which it operates its camps. Finally, it has a limited number of investors.
The company is still expected to generate a profit but it does not face the same pressure for
delivery of financial returns as large listed companies subject to significant coverage by
analysts. Collectively, these characteristics imply that, where reporting challenges are
experienced, these are not only due to the practical difficulty of drawing a connection
between different types of capital in a financial-centric context. Any difficulties being
encountered by Safari when collecting and analysing data included in its integrated reports
is more likely to the result of underlying logics of resistance.
Finally, the researchers chose to study Safari because it has prepared integrated
reports since 2011. This provides a well-established case for analysing how employees
have been interpreting integrated reporting and any changes to reporting systems and
business practices. The organisation agreed that all staff involved in the reporting process
would participate in the research. In this way, although the study engages staff at a
single firm, it avoids a situation where only individuals with the same or similar
functions provide insights, although from the perspective of different companies
(see Stubbs and Higgins, 2014).

5.1 Data collection and analysis

Given the absence of detailed research on the application of the IIRC’s integrated reporting
framework, the researchers used an exploratory case study design (Brennan and Solomon,
2008; O’Dwyer et al., 2011). This is consistent with Yin’s (2013) position that case studies offer
an opportunity to understand a complex socially constructed phenomenon in a real-life context,
including the provision of evidence in support of theoretical accounts of organisational change
and logics of resistance.
AAAJ 5.1.1 Data collection. Data were collected primarily from detailed interviews with Safari’s
31,5 employees. A semi-structured interview agenda was developed to guide the interview
process. Organisational change frameworks (Laughlin, 1991; Gray et al., 1995) and logics of
resistance (Tremblay and Gendron, 2011; Durocher and Gendron, 2014) provided context.
Open-ended questions probed the reasons for choosing to prepare an integrated report; how
the IIRC’s framework was applied; challenges encountered and the extent to which the
1328 integrated reporting initiative informed changes in the case entity’s reporting processes.
As explained in Section 1, the study explores how employees tasked with the
preparation of the case entity’s integrated report interpret the new reporting requirements
and how integrated reporting leads to changes in Safari’s reporting systems. As a result,
the researchers focus exclusively on the views of “insiders” at the case organisation
(Stubbs and Higgins, 2014). Employees not involved in the preparation of the integrated
report and development of the related reporting infrastructure were not engaged by
the researchers.
The group sustainability manager is responsible for overseeing the preparation of the
integrated report and was approached to participate in the study. He also referred the
researchers to the six other members of the organisation involved directly or indirectly with
the integrated reporting initiative, including sustainability, finance and stakeholder
engagement functions. In this way, although the study did not include the views of
investors, regulators or other users of the integrated report, the results are based on the
perspectives of all of those involved in different “aspects” of preparing the integrated report.
The researchers met each respondent individually from June to November 2015 for at
least one interview session[5]. Table II lists interviewees and indicates their positions in
the organisation.
The number of interviewees participating in the study is the result of the size of the case
organisation[6]. This was not seen as a material limitation to the quality of the study.
In keeping with an interpretive research tradition, the aim was not to generalise results or
extrapolate findings but to document respondents’ perceptions and provide a conceptual
account of the implications of identified logics of resistance for the development of the case
entity’s reporting systems. Consequently, rather than increasing the number of respondents
by engaging those involved only indirectly with the integrated report, the researchers used

Follow-up
Total length questions
Description of role in the preparation of the of interviews addressed
Position integrated reporting process (minutes) by e-mail

Chief sustainability officer Author of introductory chapters as well 120 Yes

managing the board of directors’ approval
of the integrated report
Chief financial officer Author of a chapter in the integrated report 60 Yes
Group sustainability manager Author of a chapter in the integrated report 60 Yes
and project manager of the integrated
reporting process and Global Reporting
Initiative (GRI) compliance
Group community manager Author of a chapter in the integrated report 45 Yes
Group conservation manager Author of a chapter in the integrated report 60 Yes
Group human resources manager Author of a chapter in the integrated report 90 Yes
Company secretary Author of a chapter in the integrated report 90 Yes
Table II. Notes: Given the small group of respondents, the results (Section 6) do not identify respondents according to
List of interviewees their function in the firm in order to ensure anonymity. A random number system has been used
an exploratory research design to ensure detailed insights (adapted from Holland, 1998; Potential of
Leedy and Ormrod, 2001). integrated
Interviewees were provided with an overview of the nature and purpose of the research reporting
and guaranteed confidentiality. To reduce the risk of predetermined responses, questions
were open-ended and the researchers encouraged respondents to speak freely. As group
dynamics and peer pressure can impact what respondents are prepared to discuss,
interviews were conducted individually (either in person or telephonically) by the 1329
researchers and lasted between 45 and 120 minutes.
The researchers started each interview by establishing rapport with the respondent and
emphasising the need for complete openness. Interviewees were reminded that there were
no “correct” or “incorrect” responses. While the order in which questions were posed
varied across the interviews, the themes discussed in each interview were consistent
(Alvesson, 2003).
Interviewees were asked for permission to record the interview. This ensured accurate
transcription and avoided disturbing participants by taking notes during the interviews.
To add to the reliability of the study, transcripts were made available to interviewees on
request and follow-up questions were raised as necessary by e-mail. This allowed the
researcher to confirm points raised during the first round of interviewees, pose additional
questions based on the views of other respondents and confirm the interpretation of the data
(adapted from O’Dwyer et al., 2011).
Because the researchers did not have access to the case entity over multiple years,
interview material was complemented by details obtained from the integrated reports and
minutes of sustainability meetings/workshops from 2011 to 2014. The latter included
detailed notes on the challenges encountered when preparing the integrated reports, areas
for improvement and reviews of the integrated reporting process. While these sources
provided some evidence of changes in the reporting process over time, the fairly short period
under review is an inherent limitation of the study. As a result, the findings deal with the
cumulative changes in reporting systems and respondents views on integrated reporting; it
was not possible to track specific changes over time.
5.1.2 Data analysis. Transcripts were analysed at least six times. A content analysis was
used to identify key principles, arguments or counterarguments. These were recorded in a
summary table (O’Dwyer et al., 2011). The main points or themes were the exact words used
by the interviewees or were aggregated code headings developed by the researchers and
derived from the theoretical framework presented in Section 2.
This approach allowed each transcript to be dis-aggregated systematically and for the
essence of each interview to be compared with the issues raised by other respondents or the
prior research on organisational change processes (Laughlin, 1991; Gray et al., 1995). As part
of this process, where interviewees contradicted one another or raised points which
appeared to be inconsistent with the prior research, follow-up questions were used to clarify
the respondents’ views, as explained above (Alvesson, 2003; O’Dwyer et al., 2011).
Insights from the interviews were complemented by details obtained from minutes of the
sustainability workshops and Safari’s integrated reports. These were read several times and
coded in the same manner as the interviews. The coding of these documents took place at
the same time as the analysis of interview transcriptions to ensure that any similarities or
contradictions between the sources could be identified and used to inform the follow-up
questions referred to above.

6. Results and discussion

All of the respondents agreed that Safari and the board of directors were genuinely
committed to integrated reporting and viewed it as a useful method for engaging with
AAAJ stakeholders by providing material information about how the business is being managed.
31,5 Minutes from the sustainability workshops and the company’s integrated reports reiterated
the position on the new type of reporting. This does not, however, amount to unanimous
support for the decision to adopt the IIRC’s framework.

6.1 Logics of resistance

1330 None of the respondents rejected the decision to prepare an integrated report but this does not
necessarily mean that they subscribe fully to the view that changes to the company’s
corporate reports would provide significant benefits to the organisation and its stakeholders.
Instead, preparers abided by the decision taken by Safari’s senior executives on the confidence
that board of directors understood the reasons for introducing the report (R1; R5) and that:
Integrated reporting is topical and its becoming more and more popular in terms of what people
want from the company (R3, emphasis added).
This was a recurring theme in our data. Integrated reports are part of an emerging
governance discourse which is gaining popularity and influence (see Higgins et al., 2014;
Beck et al., 2015). There are rational technical reasons for adopting an integrated approach
to business management and reporting (see Eccles and Saltzman, 2011; IIRC, 2014; Atkins
and Maroun, 2015) but the growing legitimacy of the IIRC’s framework, coupled with the
formal decision of the board of directors to change Safari’s corporate reports, provided
sufficient grounds for preparing an integrated report (see also Bebbington et al., 2009;
Vinnari and Laine, 2013).
This points to a type of flexible adherence in terms of which respondents are content to
follow the direction of their superiors and the guidance provided by standard setters but
without a commitment to the fundamental objective of integrated reporting: to promote a
more integrated and sustainable approach to business management, value generation and
the communication of performance to stakeholders (see Vinnari and Laine, 2013; Durocher
and Gendron, 2014; Atkins and Maroun, 2015). As a result, while respondents follow the
instruction to prepare an integrated report, subtle forms of resistance to integrated reporting
occur, limiting the possibility for morphogenetic change (see Laughlin, 1991; Tremblay and
Gendron, 2011; Durocher and Gendron, 2014).
6.1.1 A compliance-focused reaction. The board’s decision to prepare an integrated
report was often dealt with in a legalistic/compliance-based fashion. The data collection
becomes a procedural process for the sake of compiling the integrated report (R5), rather
than the outcome of an integrated business management model (Stubbs and Higgins, 2014).
There were several examples of this.
Dealing with the conservation issues included in the integrated report, the company’s
sustainability workshops (2011; 2012) discussed new disclosure requirements at length.
This included details on a plan for tracking waste management:
Interviewee: “One of the things you are expected to do is quantify your volumes of solid waste
being produced”.
Researcher: “What were the implications?”
Interviewee: “What that meant is that we had to start weighing the solid waste coming out of [each
camp] and, quite quickly, we realised that that was not going to be feasible and that what we
needed to do was use a sample and just weigh [the solid waste] and extrapolate and, actually, that
ended up being [our approach] […]” (R7).
As discussed in Section 6.1, the integrated reports (2014-2015) go to great length to explain
how the company is managing its environmental capital and to provide quantified
performance indicators. When asked to explain why waste production was being measured
and tracked, the respondent focused on the technical challenges and the methods used to Potential of
complete the assigned task. There was no indication of waste being monitored for any integrated
operational or strategic reasons. A similar result was found when discussing reporting reporting
systems on social/relationship capital:
The funny thing is, the other day, [a colleague] had a group meeting with all of the HR [managers]
around the regions. [This colleague] asked me to come […] So we had the meeting and I asked them,
“Why do you include this information? Why do you include headcount and all of those things? […]” 1331
The one said, “Well, it’s because we need to do it for the integrated report”. So I said, “Why?”
[My colleague responded:] “I don’t know. We just have to give the information because it’s
required for the integrated report.” So I said, “Well, please find out. What benefit? What does it
do? Why do you need to provide this piece of information?” At least give it some meaning
(R4, emphasis added).

The minutes of the sustainability workshops (2011-2014) revealed a comparable finding.

Team members did not debate how different non-financial indicators were used in the
integrated report, why that information was seen as useful for stakeholders or how
it could be used to improve Safari’s operations. Instead, the conversation was compliance-
based: sourcing data earlier, drafting chapters more promptly, inclusion of indicators
omitted in previous drafts; editorial corrections; design and layout of the report and
reporting deadlines.
We interpret the above examples as evidence of low level of cognitive support for or
epistemic commitment to the integrated reporting project. The preparers have several years’
experience in the conservation sector and with non-financial reporting. Nevertheless, they
do not engage with other team members (including the chief sustainability officer) on the
reasons for collecting the relevant data and including it in the integrated report. Instructions
to collect data are followed obediently but there is a sense of indifference about why the
information is accumulated (Durocher and Gendron, 2014; Stubbs and Higgins, 2014).
As a result, the attitude of compliance does little to encourage reflection on how the data can
be used to drive Safari’s sustainability strategy.
6.1.2 Limited understanding of the purpose of integrated reporting. Not all of the
preparers had a sound understanding of the rationale for preparing the new reports and,
related to this, the new information being requested for inclusion in the documents. As a
result, rather than participating actively in the development of the accounting system, they
resisted change:
It was difficult to get [camp staff] buy-in […] They are there to provide a good safari in the middle
of nowhere […] Now you are asking them to send their [various environmental performance
measures] in […] It is very tedious for these people […] They are there to be in the bush and for the
love of eco-tourism. They are not interested in [integrated reporting] (R7).

Similarly:
I mean, no-one knew what we were doing and why we wanted it so they were less willing to make an
effort to find it [referring to different information needed for preparing the integrated report] (R3).

The researchers identified two aspects of resistance emerging from a limited understanding
of why Safari needed to prepare an integrated report. First, respondents questioned whether
or not the benefits of the different types of data being collected justified the costs limiting
their commitment to any change in reporting systems. Second, with integrated reporting not
fully understood, individual preparers assume that they must adhere strictly to reporting
guidelines. In doing so, they overlook the fact that integrated reporting is supposed to be
principles based and linked to the development of innovative management strategies for
ensuring long-term sustainability.
AAAJ To illustrate resistance based on concerns about the cost of integrated reporting, consider
31,5 the following comment by one preparer. Initially, the respondent appears to support changing
the corporate reporting model but this does not amount to complete commitment:
Sometimes there’s information that you’re not actually sure what value it adds, or what the purpose
is, of that piece of information […] If I look at our [integrated report] to me it’s pretty comprehensive
but I’m not quite sure of the purpose that we’re doing it (sic) […] You know, I’ve obviously looked
1332 around at other organisations and what they do, and you know, some of them are really
comprehensive, and you just wonder, ‘Well, is all that effort really beneficial? Is it going into the
right channels? […] So the amount of time just to prepare these pieces of information is sometimes
exorbitant and you wonder if, even though sometimes it may add value, it might [not] be, in excess
of the amount spent to get that information […] but at this point if you ask me if I had a choice of
actually doing it or not doing it, I would pick not doing it and to be quite honest, to confess, that it’s
very possible I don’t understand it well enough (R4).
The report is “comprehensive” but the information it provides is not necessarily seen as
important for stakeholders or relevant for internal management. In addition, the preparer
doubts if the time taken to prepare the report is directly proportionate to the value derived
by stakeholders. Nevertheless, the respondent stops short of outright rejection of the
relevance of the integrated report. There is a sense of flexible adherence in the admission of
a lack of complete understanding and the possibility that additional information could
change the conclusion on integrated reporting. This is not, however, sufficient to promote
second-order change. Without a complete commitment to or internalisation of the reasons
for preparing an integrated report, it is unlikely that the preparer will devote the time and
effort needed to study the data being collected and reflect on how the reporting system can
be used to enhance internal management or operating practices (see Laughlin, 1995; Adams
and McNicholas, 2007; Stubbs and Higgins, 2014). The comments of a second preparer
affirm this view:
Researcher: “What would you say are the main challenges of preparing an integrated report?”
Respondent: “To me, the biggest one is time constraints because every person in the business has a
day job. Not saying that the integrated report is not part of their job but I I’m talking about their
day job for now. You’ve got your day job but suddenly there comes a piece of a project that has got
timelines (R2)”
Similarly:
We needed very specific resources to be measured and that’s where we had to go through the
debate [on what to include in […]] the report. That [took] resources away from the positive things
we were trying to do (R6).
The integrated report is not seen as an integral part of the business operations in the
manner envisaged by the IIRC (2013) and IRCSA (2011) and something which has the
potential to alter the reporting system in order to facilitate better management of resources.
It is interpreted as a separate task which is removed from the core of the organisation,
imposes an administrative burden on employees and detracts from value-adding activity.
The result is a reinforcement of a compliance-based approach to reporting and resistance in
the form of a lack of enthusiasm, slow responses to requests for information, poorly written
reports and inaccurate information being submitted to the reporting team (R1; R2; R3).
A reasonable inference, using Laughlin’s (1991) model, is that highlighting the costs or
limitations of reporting is a rebuttal strategy designed to allow the organisation to return to
a pre-disturbance state. The Company has prepared an integrated report because of
stakeholder pressure emanating from codes of best practice and a decision by the board of
directors but this does not guarantee automatic support for the new sub-systems and design
archetype (see Gray et al., 1995; Vinnari and Laine, 2013). Instead, with a low level of Potential of
commitment to the reporting project, data collection becomes a “burden” and the possibility integrated
of the accounting system constructing new lines of visibility to drive positive operational reporting
changes is overlooked (see also Hopwood, 1987; Stubbs and Higgins, 2014; Atkins and
Maroun, 2015). Compounding this is over-dependence on reporting guidelines:
Researcher: “Would [employees] be more open to preparing an integrated report if there was a set
structure provided to them? Or do you think that the lack of a clear standard is a challenge?” 1333
Respondent: “Yes – they just need rules and regulations and the minute there isn’t, they don’t know
which way to go. So yes I think it’s unfortunate but to make it easier, they definitely need the rules” (R4).
On one level, the principles-based approach followed by the IIRC’s framework may give rise
to practical challenges when deciding how to report on the interconnections between
multiple types of capital (Atkins and Maroun, 2015). More critically, however,
rules-dependency is symptomatic of a low level of commitment to integrated reporting
resulting in practitioners adopting reporting guidelines but without questioning the basic
principles, the rationale for reporting or how the information can be used to improve the
organisation (cf. Tremblay and Gendron, 2011; Durocher and Gendron, 2014; van Zijl and
Maroun, 2017). In other words, a passive form of resistance contributes to the organisation’s
inertia and limits the potential of the integrated reporting initiative to promote alternate
perspectives on the activity of the firm and to contribute to second-order change.
6.1.3 Non-integration of reporting functions. While it is convenient to classify
respondents as either from a financial or non-financial reporting background, it is
important to note that Safari relies on a multi-disciplinary team of experts to prepare
its integrated report. At the start of each interview, the respondents identified themselves
according to their operating functions within the firm. Examples included conservation
management, community engagement or financial management. Interviewees did not define
themselves as either in a financial or sustainability reporting role. In addition, each
individual held professional and/or academic qualifications in their respective fields
complemented with several years’ practical experience.
A reasonable inference is that each is committed to a particular knowledge base or
world outlook giving rise to trials of strength as the requirement to prepare an integrated
report is interpreted from multiple perspectives (see Fogarty, 1992; Tremblay and
Gendron, 2011; Durocher and Gendron, 2014). For example, despite the aim of the
integrated report to provide insights into the relevance of environmental and social issues
for the company’s operating activities and long-term strategy (Section 6.1), employees “on
the ground” and tasked with managing camps, conservation projects or community
engagement found it difficult to understand the rationale for preparing an integrated
report (R7). As discussed in Section 6.2.2, they interpreted the reporting requirement with
a compliance logic and something separate from their operational reality. Although not
raised specifically during the interviews, it is possible that these individuals (accustomed
to a hands-on-approach (R7) to conservation and social engagement) identified the
integrated report as too abstract to be important.
In addition, the relevance of technical or professional jurisdictions should not be
overlooked. It is possible that integrated reporting poses a hegemonic challenge to
conventional accounting and that this contributes to a logic of resistance to the new
reporting system (consider Cooper and Robson, 2006; Malsch, 2013; Durocher and Gendron,
2014). The same can apply more broadly in the context of a multi-disciplinary team of
experts. For example, sustainability workshops – intended to facilitate an exchange of ideas
for preparing the integrated report – reveal little technical integration among staff.
As explained by the respondents, these often culminated in separate sessions where the
AAAJ issues applicable for each “component” of the 4Cs were discussed. This implies that
31,5 technical or operational detail is seen as something specific to each area of expertise and that
the requirement to provide a multi-dimensional perspective of the organisation is a
challenge for both financial and sustainability experts.

6.2 Towards positive change

1334 As explained by Tremblay and Gendron (2011), in a complex socially constructed context, it
is possible for individuals to subscribe simultaneously to conflicting views. As a result,
while logics of resistance are evident, there are also signs of preparers beginning to change
their views on the integrated reporting project and evidence of material changes to the
reporting system as it takes shape.
6.2.1 Changes in the scope of the reporting system. A possible indication of what
Gray et al. (1995) refer to as a “morphostatic colonisation or evolution process” (pointing to
second-order change) was a sustained increase in the scope of the accounting and reporting
sub-systems. Respondents explained that, historically, the accounting function focused
almost exclusively on financial capital, particularly revenue and costs. All of the
interviewees felt that integrated reporting had changed the reporting system by driving
more detailed data collection on different ESG elements which would not otherwise have
been reported to stakeholders. Examples included statistics on water usage,
diesel consumption, CO2 emissions, biomes affected by operations, species conserved,
number of people engaged in outreach programmes and investment in local communities
(R1; R2; R4; R5).
In addition to expanding the type of information being collected, there was evidence of
the integrated report being supported by a purposefully designed accounting infrastructure
(see Melnyk et al., 2003; Alrazi et al., 2015). Respondents felt that the integrated report was
no longer prepared on a reactionary basis to the recommendations of the GRI and IIRC
(R1; R2; R3). Instead, the Company has developed databases to record and track important
ESG metrics which are identified, based on prior experience with reporting guidelines,
management’s understanding of the business, engagement with external stakeholders and
in-depth sustainability workshops with employees (see Dumay et al., 2010; Alrazi et al.,
2015). Rather than seeing the data as something used to “check the boxes for the GRI”, the
data sets inform the discussion and analysis included in the integrated report and provide
stakeholders with quantified key performance measures including, for example, investment
in conservation research, levels of guest satisfaction and extent of community development
initiatives (R1; R4).
To ensure that the data are reliable and complete, the accounting system incorporates
formal controls and reporting protocols suggesting the emergence of a more mature
reporting environment (Melnyk et al., 2003; Alrazi et al., 2015). For example, ESG data are no
longer collected by e-mail or using simple spreadsheets. The Company has invested in an
online platform which allows for data input on a daily basis, according to pre-defined
standards or fields. In this way, the Company is using a type of chart of accountants – used
to ensure complete and consistent financial reporting – to define exactly what information
needs to be reported, its format and unit of measure (R1; R5). The IT infrastructure also
allows for immediate access to site information which enables management to review data
being submitted and to follow up on possible errors or omissions (R1; R4). In addition, one
respondent explained that data collection and reporting have become a formal part of
employees’ roles and responsibilities and that new reporting functions have been created at
the operational level to support the integrated reporting initiative:
We used to have to do our accounts sort of randomly whenever someone was available. Now we
have dedicated accountants in the regions, so that all makes it easier (R2, emphasis added).
These accountants engage with a senior manager at sustainability workshops to determine Potential of
the type of data which needs to be collected and monitored at individual sites or business integrated
units and reported for review by senior management (R2; R3). In addition, information is no reporting
longer compiled only at the end of the year when the integrated report is produced.
The different operations or sites are expected to collect data continuously and report at
pre-defined times throughout the period covered by the integrated report.
6.2.2 Implications of an expanded and formalised accounting system. Interviewees felt 1335
that the formalisation of the accounting system has allowed the Company to understand
better what data need to be collected to support disclosures included in an integrated report,
how to collect that data and the interconnection among the data (R4; R6). One respondent,
for example, explained how changes in the accounting system driven by integrated
reporting revealed inefficient recording and processing of transactions. Data on fuel usage
were being collected and recorded by different sites for reporting on the conservation
elements in the integrated report. The same information was being collected by the finance
team to monitor fuel costs but there was no method of reconciling the information and
showing how investment in renewable energy technology was reducing CO2 emissions and
also contributing to financial savings. The respondent concluded that, as a result of changes
to the accounting system to accommodate integrated reporting:
[…] people are far more aware of [their business activities] now than they were before. Before, they
might have done something without considering the impact of it [for other parts of the business].
You know, it’s the whole domino effect of something (R5).
As predicted by Hopwood (1987), Melnyk et al. (2003) and Alrazi et al. (2015), this comment
points to the capacity of the accounting infrastructure to promote a more proactive
approach to reporting in terms of which the act of accounting for and reporting on a subject
matter changes underling management practices. Consider, for example, the following
comment on the database discussed earlier:
[A colleague] built this online database which all the regions log into and capture all of their data
monthly […] There’ve been some interesting outcomes of that. There’ve been 2 situations where
problems [have been identified] – operational problems that management didn’t know about.
He found a leak in one of the [camp wells]. He was questioning the amount of pumping of water we
were doing. That led to an investigation on the ground at the camp and recognition that we had a
water leak in one of the systems, and the only way we found that was because […] [the Staff
member], when he looked at how much fuel we were consuming pumping water, it didn’t make any
sense that the pumps were going continually because of this leak (R1).
As explained by Hopwood (1987) and Gray et al. (1995), over time, the functioning of the
accounting system (including data collection processes) constructs new lines
of accountability and enables more detailed review and specific intervention by
management. In this instance, the requirement to prepare an integrated report gives rise
to the development of accounting infrastructure required to collect statistics on certain
environmental indicators. Staff are assigned responsibility for gathering these data,
reporting to head office and accounting for changing trends. The process results in the
unexpected identification of an operational issue which is resolved leading to financial
savings and improved environmental performance. A second example shows how the
integrated reporting sub-system is being used to inform management decision making:
At some of the camps we are charging just over USD2000. That’s a lot of money […] and we wanted
to know where does [the revenue] actually go? Where is the value going? Now, you can actually
start to see where that value is going. We can break it down into [commerce, conservation,
community and culture]. For example, we know that 65% of that is going to staff and the local
communities […] For me, that’s the whole point of when you show your value chain […] You show
where your value comes from and where it’s going (R7).
AAAJ In this instance, management is carrying out an analysis of the price of their safaris. The
31,5 integrated reporting systems have not revealed an unexpected trend or outcome as with the
first example. Instead, the data from the accounting infrastructure used to prepare an
integrated report are applied for an unintended purpose; management relies on the integrated
reporting accounting system to understand better how underlying commercial, conservation,
cultural and community considerations are relevant aspects of a safari and to inform a
1336 decision on the price charged to customers. In this way, so-called non-financial metrics
(including ESG indicators) become financially relevant and important for managing
operations. Additional evidence to support this view comes from the use of the accounting
infrastructure to provide a basis for analytical review of business performance. For example:
Now in our operations, they will go back to the previous 2, 3 or even 4 years and compare fuel usage
in a particular camp and then try and work out and compare to occupancies and understand why,
suddenly in this year there has been a particularly high usage (R7).
Evidence of ESG metrics being incorporated into business control and review systems
implies that the changes to the sub-systems due to integrated reporting are beginning to
affect the firm’s design archetypes and provide a more detailed understanding of business
activities (see Hopwood, 1987; Adams and McNicholas, 2007; Adams and Frost, 2008).
As data, originally collected only for the integrated report, form part of new entity-level
control systems, there is additional incentive to improve application-level controls discussed
earlier. For example, explaining the water usage data referred to above, once the data were
used to monitor the reasonability of water usage at a frim-wide level, the respondent pointed
out that a staff member has to:
[…] keep an eye on [the reporting system] to make sure that it is being done all the time and there’s
a lot of nagging to make sure everybody does [their data capturing] every month (R1).
On the one hand, monitoring and control mechanisms highlight coercive pressure underlying
colonisation-induced changes, something which Laughlin (1991) identifies as an inherent
limitation of this type of second-order reform. On the other hand, the fact that Safari relies on
internal controls to ensure the accuracy and completeness of reporting reaffirms the commitment
to ensuring that the new sub-systems continue to operate. Over time, the functioning of an
expanded accounting system can do more than serve as a source of coercive isomorphic pressure
and lead to changes in perceptions or attitudes (Frost and Seamer, 2002; Alrazi et al., 2015).
Consider, for example, the following comment on the implication of the accounting for
community engagement as one of the core elements of the Company’s integrated report:
I think the guys in the regions are now more aware [of the positive impact that Company has on
community members] […] The thing is we do so much all the time in the communities, and they’re
small little random things, but the guys weren’t […] remembering them. They just weren’t
reporting on them. So when we fixed a tap, and suddenly a whole village can have water, where
they couldn’t […] And so I think the guys were more aware of the importance of reporting
[…] They send me a lot more stuff now, more readily (R3, emphasis added).
The requirement to collect data on the financial cost and time spent on community projects
makes employees aware of the Company’s role in improving the conditions of local
communities where it is operating. The accounting system highlights the positive outcomes
of Safari’s business model, motivates employees and, in turn, drives the need for more
detailed and accurate reporting. Related closely to this is a growing awareness of the
importance of communicating different ESG initiatives as part of an expanded sense of
moral accountability (Gray et al., 1995):
It’s not perfect but, at least, it’s a move in the right direction […] It’s making people aware […]
There are companies out there that are destroying the rest of the world and there are companies
 which are trying not to […] And I think maybe the companies that are destroying, like areas of Potential of
land, when they’re forced to report, hopefully at that point, it kind of, is a red flag, and, at least, it’s integrated
drawing their attention to something (Group Culture).
reporting
Further evidence that changes in sub-systems and design infrastructures are starting to
take a morphogenetic form comes from incorporating feedback on limitations or challenges
into revised reporting protocols (Laughlin, 1991; Adams and Frost, 2008; Dumay et al., 2010).
For example, in the most recent integrated report, the Company took the decision to place 1337
less emphasis on compliance with the GRI (see Section 6.2.2) to provide more relevant
information in the integrated report (R1; R6) (see also Dumay et al., 2010; Atkins and
Maroun, 2015). This was also part of a process of reducing employees’ reporting burden.
Likewise, the 2014 sustainability workshop noted that certain data reporting requirements
were onerous or poorly understood and, as a result, posed challenges for effective integrated
reporting (see Section 6.2.2):
Unless the people on the ground […] see the value in doing something, [Head Office] can jump up
and down all they want […] Unless the people in the regions see the value in doing it [referring to
the integrated reporting processes] […] they’re going to do it grudgingly and the quality of it is
going to suffer […] And so, for the last few years, we’ve been consciously trying to devolve
authority and decision making to the regions […] and we’re trying to get away from a situation
where [people at Head Office] tell the regions what to do (R1).
In other words, the accounting system is moving from relying on a push logic to collect data to
co-opting individuals in the data collection process. There is a sense of the Company trying to
encourage employees to take ownership of the economic, environmental and social
performance at their respective sites or business units (Melnyk et al., 2003; Dumay et al., 2010)
and appreciate the importance of collecting and reporting data on these dimensions for
improving internal performance and positive outcomes for different stakeholders (R1; R4).
In addition, Safari realises that it needs to be practical. The Company understands that,
while the scope of the accounting system needs to expand to support an integrated reporting
model, the accounting infrastructure should enable an integrated approach to management,
rather than become the focal point in its own right (R1; R6). Related closely to this is
maintaining the positive attitude to integrated reporting, discussed earlier, which is only
beginning to emerge:
Getting the systems in place and maintaining the enthusiasm was important. In order to achieve that,
firstly, we had to get a whole lot more realistic in terms of what we were asking for and we had to also
get the systems in place. And I think we’re doing okay in that regard but you know it’s one of those
things where if you sit back and don’t pay attention, things will slip again quite quickly (R6).
Interviewees are starting to appreciate that, without consistent evaluation and review, the
Company may revert from an emerging integrated business approach to the original
design archetype. To avoid this, the Company has attempted to simplify the reporting
requirements (R1), co-opt employees in developing charts of accounts for the new system
(R4) and foster an individual sense of ownership of the data being collected for the
integrated report (R6). As a result, although not a common finding, there was evidence
that, over time, a type of “positive inner colonisation” (Laughlin, 1991, p. 220) has resulted.
Consider the following comment:
You know people always continually want to surpass their previous output, or their previous
performance. I’m not talking results. I’m not talking numbers. So if, for instance, this year you
couldn’t maybe collate certain information, maybe say information about shares, or anything,
timely. Definitely in the coming year, or in future, you’re going to want to come up with a system, or
put into place a process that will make sure it gives you information that is readily available.
There’s continual change in terms of systems (R2).
AAAJ While there may be resistance to Safari’s integrated reporting (Section 6.2), this quotation
31,5 suggests that this is balanced with a growing sense of commitment to the integrated
reporting initiative. Employees are beginning to understand the interconnection between
different types of capital discussed in the IIRC’s framework and incorporating an integrated
reporting vocabulary in their explanation of the Company’s business model:
We don’t see any one of the 4C’s [commerce, conservation, community and culture] as the most
1338 important. However, what we do say is that commerce provides us with the resources to make a
difference in the other C’s. Without a successful business, we cannot do the other things […] But at
the same time, we’ve got to make sure about the conservation level and that communities are happy
because […] then we won’t have commerce (R7).
A more integrated understanding of Company’s business model goes hand-in-hand with a
multi-capital perceptive on value creation.
6.2.3 Impression management vs an integrated understanding of value. Like any other
organisation operating as part of the capital market system, all of the interviewees
confirmed that effective management of financial capital is important for ensuring
long-term sustainability. As a result, a large part of the integrated reports (2011-2015) is
dedicated to explaining financial performance. For example, the overview of Safari’s
business model details the impact of occupancy rates, exchange volatility and the pricing of
its safaris for generating profits (Integrated Report, 2014, 2015). The company’s strategy
stresses the importance of managing operating costs, improving productivity and “building
the balance sheet and cash reserves” (Integrated Report, 2015). The significance of finance
and operating considerations were also discussed during sustainability workshops (2013;
2015) and reaffirmed by all of the respondents. Nevertheless, value creation is not only about
financial returns:
I would say value is broader now than in the past. In the past you just had to make money for your
shareholders. You just had to make a decent return for your shareholders but now you really need
to go an extra mile to show that you are a responsible corporate citizen […] You have to balance
between your commerce, your culture, your community and conservation (R2).
This perspective is evident in the integrated reports (2011-2015) which frame sustainability
as a core management consideration and present each of the non-financial dimensions of the
4Cs (commerce, conversation, culture and community) as an integral part of the business
model and the organisation’s ability to continue as a going concern. For example, on the
importance of environmental capital the integrated report states:
[…] this is enlightened self-interest. Our business depends on the health of the ecosystems and
species that are the attractions for our guests. Any negative impacts on the environment resulting
from our operations would reduce their attractiveness and thus the competitiveness of our
business. Conversely, improvements to biodiversity and species will increase the attractiveness of
our tourism operations and thus the success of the business (Integrated Report, 2015).
A similar view is expressed on social/relationship capital:
While our external communities contribute tenure, support and revenue, our internal community
connects our guests to the wilderness (Integrated Report, 2012).
A critical interpretation is that these disclosures amount to little more than impression
management. The close connection between a developed accounting infrastructure and
reporting process suggests otherwise (Melnyk et al., 2003; Alrazi et al., 2015). If Safari was
only interested in addressing expectations for, at least, some level of environmental and
social reporting, why invest resources in developing the IT systems and reporting protocols
to collect different types of data necessary to support the discussion and analysis being
included in the integrated report? In addition, assigning responsibility for reporting on the
4Cs to specific employees who are held accountable by the board of directors (R1; R6) is Potential of
inconsistent with a superficial corporate reporting ethos (see Alrazi et al., 2015; Michelon integrated
et al., 2015; de Villiers et al., 2016). reporting
Impression management is normally associated with generic reporting which shows
little integration between the financial and other capitals. These reports lack specific action
statements and measures of actual performance. They emphasise good news, ignore or
obfuscate negative circumstances and contain only vague plans for the future (see, e.g. Cho 1339
et al., 2010, 2015; Merkl-Davies et al., 2011; Solomon and Maroun, 2012; Michelon et al., 2015).
In contrast, respondents explained how they had been tasked with improving the focus of
the integrated report to make the alignment between performance, risk and strategy clearer
and provide a detailed assessment of the relevance of the 4Cs for the Company’s ability to
generate value (R1; R4; R5). To this end, the integrated reports (2012-2015) describe a
multi-dimensional perspective of the business. The documents provide performance
measures, targets and assessments specific to each of the 4Cs. For example, the 2013
integrated report summarises a three-year biodiversity plan designed to increase
biodiversity mass, expand tourism opportunities and contribute to conservation of
different species. A review of agreements concluded with local communities, the nature of
these agreements and the payments made to community groups are included in the 2012
integrated report and presented as both an investment in relationship/cultural capital and a
key operating consideration. In each case, the integrated reports provide both narrative
information on different conservation and community projects, an explanation of the
purpose of the projects, outlines of the relevant risks and quantified performance measures
such as wilderness areas under management and number of communities engaged.
In the researchers’ opinion, the detailed description of sustainability plans, quantification
of financial and non-financial key performance indicators and clear timeframes for
achieving objectives in the 2013-2015 integrated reports suggests that integrated reporting
is more than just an exercise in impression management (see Solomon and Maroun, 2012;
Malsch, 2013; Cho et al., 2015; Michelon et al., 2015). A final illustration of the company’s
commitment to an integrated approach to business is the framing of Safari’s core objective
as effecting relevant change, instead of just maximising financial profits:
Our vision is to be Africa’s leading ecotourism organisation, creating life-changing journeys in
order to build sustainable conservation economies and inspire positive action (Integrated
Report, 2015, emphasis added).
In keeping with this objective, employees do not see value from only a financial perspective.
It is framed according to the implications of the Company’s activities and the outcomes of
the business model (Eccles and Krzus, 2010):
Value is more than just monetary. We’re saying that the value we’re creating is not just by running a
tourism operation […] We say that we invest in low footprint ways of providing an experience […]
We [ask] how our presence improves the conservation of the area […] How many people are we
actually impacting on a local basis? And we don’t just stop at employees. We try and understand
what’s our greater impact in supporting local villages […] We want to ensure that [local communities
who own the concessions on which Safari operates] get true value out of us being a partner with them
[because] then we know the conservation value of our [operating areas] is intact (R2).
An outcomes-focused approach to understanding the business and its value creation
process is in line with the principles outlined by the IIRC of generating sustainable returns
by focusing on how the organisation relies on and impacts multiple types of capital
(see IIRC, 2013; King, 2016). The above explanations of value are also consistent with a
growing sense of stewardship of the wilderness areas in which Safari operates and the
communities which are relying on the Company’s business activities. At the economic level,
AAAJ there is an understanding that so-called non-financial capital is important for the generating
31,5 long-term financial returns:
[…] From a financial perspective, it’s quite easy […] to talk about sustainability when you’re in
back office because, if you continuously make profits, there’s your sustainability. But you don’t
actually know what damage you could have caused. For us, in terms of rehabilitating areas that
we operate in, ensuring that they are financially viable, in order to maintain those areas, so that if
1340 they find, I don’t know, oil on one of our territories, they’ll still choose our model rather than go and
mine it (R4, emphasis added).
According to interviewees, traditional measures of accounting profit fail to describe
adequately the past performance of the organisation and how it has generated value (R1; R3;
R6) as argued by the IIRC (2013). Respondent 4 went on to clarify that the Company’s
“value” is a product of financial performance and long-term sustainability considerations.
In addition to the accounting profit, it is important to consider the implications of an
alternate use of the natural capital under the organisation’s control, including rehabilitation
costs and the consequences of the destruction of pristine wilderness areas.
A strong anthropocentric perspective of the environment is evident which is not entirely
in line with a significant change in the understanding of the purpose of the firm (see Dillard
and Reynolds, 2008; Atkins, Atkins, Thomson and Maroun, 2015). Consequently, it may be
argued that this is not indicative of real evolutionary change in the organisation’s
interpretive schemes. Nevertheless, the aim of the integrated reporting initiative was not to
promote a deep ecological account of an organisation’s activities or serve as a substitute for
capitalism (Atkins, Atkins, Thomson and Maroun, 2015; King, 2016). In the context of the
dominance of financial capital described by, for example, Pesqueux (2005), Gray (2010) and
Tregidga et al. (2014), a growing awareness of the importance of long-term measures of
sustainability which incorporates the financial and social costs of the environment should
not be dismissed as superficial. As explained by Gray et al. (1995), “there are degrees of
‘morphogenesis’ ”. Integrated reporting is a comparatively recent development which will
take time for companies to understand completely and to apply in the context of their
specific business models (Atkins and Maroun, 2015; King, 2016). It may be too early to
expect companies to transform completely interpretive schemes which are the product of a
long-standing capitalist hegemony. What is encouraging is that, despite the prevalence of
financial and economic discourses in contemporary organisations, there are initial signs of
changing mindsets.

7. Discussion, conclusion and recommendation

We find evidence of a logic of resistance at the case organisation which, as explained by
Laughlin (1991), contributes to a sense of organisational inertia and limits the possibility of
morphogenetic change. A lack of understanding of the potential of integrated reporting and
business management; over-reliance on rules or guidelines and a compliance-based
approach to reporting are the most common examples of resistance to the introduction of
integrated reporting and thinking. Investors disregarding the integrated report
compounded the limited sense of epistemic commitment to the integrated reporting
project and undermine its change potential. Nevertheless, the researchers also encountered
behaviour pointing to the possibility of change “beyond morphostasis” (Gray et al., 1995,
p. 226). The main points are summarised in Figure 1.
Integrated reporting has led to an expansion of the scope of the accounting system.
The case organisation collects data on a wider range of ESG indicators than it did before the
adoption of the IIRC’s framework. These are informed by a careful analysis and
understanding of the business model rather than the disclosures recommended by the GRI
(see Dumay et al., 2010; de Villiers et al., 2016). Data collection and reporting is no longer
 Expanded scope of accounting system Proactivity Potential of
integrated
Specific focus on ESG metrics
Improved understanding of what data
are needed and how to collect them reporting

Data from the accounting system

Purposefully designed/pre-
determined reporting elements
De-emphasising the role of the
GRO and similar frameworks
Formalisation of controls and
reporting protocols
Establishment of reporting
responsibilities
reveal operational areas requiring
intervention
Outcomes 1341
Data from the accounting system
reveal operational areas requiring
intervention
Outcomes-focused
understanding of value
Data from the accounting system used
to aid management decision making
and facilitate management review
Reduced likelihood of
integrated reporting used
as a tool for impression
Create an awareness of positive firm management
outcomes

Improve attitudes towards integrated

Continuous data collection and
reporting and encourage employees
pre-defined reporting dates using
to take ownership of their reporting Figure 1.
online platform
functions Elements of the
change potential of
integrated reporting

performed on an ad hoc basis. Instead, individual employees are tasked with the
responsibility of managing the accounting infrastructure. This operates on an online
platform which facilitates real-time capturing and analysis according to a pre-set reporting
protocol to ensure consistent and accurate reporting.
The expansion and formalisation of this accounting system is driving higher levels of
proactivity (see Frost and Seamer, 2002; Melnyk et al., 2003; Alrazi et al., 2015). ESG data
collected originally for preparing the integrated report are being used to identify operational
challenges, improve efficiencies, inform management decision making and to hold sites
accountable for use of resources. Even if, initially, integrated reporting was introduced only
in response to external pressures, its functioning has created an awareness of the
interconnection between different types of so-called non-financial indicators and
performance at an operational level which allows for specific management intervention
and alters individuals’ attitude towards integrated reporting (see Hopwood, 1987; Adams
and Frost, 2008). As the benefits of proactivity become clearer, the need for a supporting
accounting infrastructure is reaffirmed (as indicated by the link from proactivity to
the accounting system elements in Figure 1) There is also evidence that the accounting
infrastructure and resulting proactivity effects are yielding early changes to the
“vocabulary of organisational rationality” (Gray et al., 1995, p. 213).
Unsurprisingly, financial considerations are still paramount. Five years of integrated
reporting cannot be expected to alter finance and economic paradigms at the heart of
contemporary business practice. Nevertheless, as the interviews progressed, the researchers
realised that even those respondents who were initially critical of integrated reporting were
broadening their views on value creation. For example, respondents felt that the financial
and social costs of damage to wilderness areas had to be taken into account by
organisations and their investors. Similarly, all of the interviewees agreed that social,
natural and human capital play an important role in the firm’s business model and are
relevant for stakeholders. This was the case notwithstanding the limitations of conventional
AAAJ accounting systems to incorporate measures of different types of capital in statements of
31,5 comprehensive income or financial position ( Jones and Solomon, 2013; Atkins, Atkins,
Thomson and Maroun, 2015). This is because “value” is not articulated in terms of changes
in neoliberal measures of financial position and performance but in terms of the positive and
negative outcomes of the case entity’s business model.
Consequently, despite a logic of resistance limiting significant business reforms, we
1342 cannot conclude that integrated reporting is only an exercise in impression management
which has failed to result in anything beyond morphostatic change (cf. Bebbington et al.,
2009; Vinnari and Laine, 2013; Stubbs and Higgins, 2014). The development of an
integrated accounting framework has enabled the possibility for morphogenetic change
by expanding the conventional accounting system to allow for monitoring, review and
management control at the non-financial level and promote a broader understanding of
value. Only five years into the process, a rejection of capitalism at the heart of
contemporary business cannot be expected (see Adams, 2015; Flower, 2015). Instead, the
findings show that holistic approaches to business management and reporting envisaged
by the IIRC can occur over time.
In this way, the case study shows that changes to an organisation’s corporate reporting
mindset and systems are complex and not mutually exclusive. The Company does not
simply experience a state of inertia followed by either first- or second-order change because
of an external shock. Instead, as the new reporting framework is interpreted and applied
differently by individuals within the organisation, practical difficulties are encountered and
different levels of resistance occur. As a result, integrated reporting is viewed differently at
the official/organisational level and from the perspective of employees. Irrespective of
employees’ background, experience or formal training, it takes time for preparers to
transition from their original perspectives on corporate reporting and sustainability to
applying new sub-systems in creative ways to alter organisational behaviour and
conceptualise value creation differently. This is equally true for employees from both a
financial and sustainability reporting background.
These findings are especially important because of the proliferation of integrated
reporting and its advocacy by regulators and policy makers in different jurisdictions
(see de Villiers et al., 2014; IIRC, 2014; Atkins and Maroun, 2015). Before significant
structural changes occur, it is important for firms to explain the reasons for preparing an
integrated report and to demonstrate how an integrated reporting model can add value for
the firm as well as for those affected by the change process. In particular, it cannot be
assumed that – because a multi-disciplinary team has been tasked with the preparation of
the integrated report – that resistance to the new report format can be overlooked.
Expectations must also be reasonable. Morphogenetic change is unlikely to occur in the
short term. Preparations must be made for a transitional period from first-order reactions
to growing awareness of the need for integrated reporting before design archetypes and
interpretive schemes begin to alter. Even when this does occur, senior management and
concerned stakeholders need to realise that second-order change involves reconstituting
the organisational boundary to enable innovative ways of doing business and reporting
to users. Once the boundary is altered, management needs to ensure that
second-order evolutionary processes continue to develop (Laughlin, 1991; Llewellyn,
1994; Larrinaga-Gonzalez and Bebbington, 2001).
Additional research will be needed to promote this long-run second-order change.
For example, this study did not explore how ESG metrics can be incorporated into
management control systems to drive efficiencies at the operational level. Similarly, more
needs to be done on understanding how financial resources are being invested in different
types of capital transformations and how to communicate this in the integrated report
(see, e.g. Haller and Staden, 2014). As part of this process, the ability to construct alternate
forms of accounting capable of communicating how organisations manage Potential of
transformations of different types of capital should be carefully considered (Brown and integrated
Dillard, 2014; Atkins, Atkins, Thomson and Maroun, 2015). Finally, future research should reporting
focus in more detail on the reasons for resisting change and how these can be overcome by
organisations. For example, this study identifies specific logics of resistance to the
decision to prepare an integrated report but does not examine changes in employee
mindsets over time. Exactly how preparers form their views on new reporting 1343
prescriptions or guidelines and the best methods for overcoming low levels of commitment
to different reporting philosophies remain unclear. This should be investigated in more
detail to assist academics and practitioners to understand how best to implement new
accounting and reporting systems. In the meantime, the academic community should not
be too quick to dismiss integrated reporting as little more than a sophisticated exercise in
impression management.

Notes
1. The company’s name has been changed to ensure anonymity.
2. We focus specifically on the South African experience with integrated reporting because the case
organisation operates in Africa and has its head office in Johannesburg, South Africa.
3. Laughlin (1991) points out that “positive inner colonization” may occur in the sense that changes
forced on the firm may come to be accepted. Nevertheless, the random nature of organisational
change “always allows for the possibility of unwelcome or destructive colonization” (Gray et al.,
1995, p. 217).
4. This became the Social, Ethics and Sustainability Committee during 2015.
5. Some of the interviewees are based at the company’s head office and its different sites. In addition,
the researchers did not have access to the sites (which are based in remote locations). As a result, it
was impractical to complement interviews with other field-study data.
6. As a result, and due to the small sample size, participants are identified by a respondent number
rather than by name or job function.

References
Adams, C.A. (2015), “The International Integrated Reporting Council: a call to action”, Critical
Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 27, pp. 23-28.
Adams, C.A. and Frost, G.R. (2008), “Integrating sustainability reporting into management practices”,
Accounting Forum, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 288-302.
Adams, C.A. and McNicholas, P. (2007), “Making a difference: sustainability reporting, accountability
and organisational change”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 20 No. 3,
pp. 382-402.
Alrazi, B., de Villiers, C. and van Staden, C.J. (2015), “A comprehensive literature review on, and the
construction of a framework for, environmental legitimacy, accountability and proactivity”,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 102, pp. 44-57.
Alvesson, M. (2003), “Beyond neopositivists, romantics, and localists: a reflexive approach to
interviews in organizational research”, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 28 No. 1,
pp. 13-33.
Atkins, J. and Maroun, W. (2014), South African Institutional Investors’ Perceptions of Integrated
Reporting, The Association of Chartered Certified Accountants, London.
Atkins, J. and Maroun, W. (2015), “Integrated reporting in South Africa in 2012: perspectives from
South African institutional investors”, Meditari Accountancy Research, Vol. 23 No. 2,
pp. 197-221.
AAAJ Atkins, J. and Maroun, W. (2018), “Integrated extinction accounting and accountability: building an
31,5 ark”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 750-786.
Atkins, J., Maroun, W., Atkins, B.C. and Barone, E. (2018), “From the Big Five to the Big Four?
Exploring extinction accounting for the rhinoceros”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 674-702.
Atkins, J., Atkins, B., Thomson, I. and Maroun, W. (2015), “ ‘Good’ news from nowhere: imagining
1344 utopian sustainable accounting”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 28 No. 5,
pp. 651-670.
Atkins, J., Barone, E., Maroun, W. and Atkins, B. (2016), “Bee accounting and accountability in the UK”,
in Atkins, K. and Atkins, B. (Eds), The Business of Bees: An Integrated Approach to Bee Decline
and Corporate Responsibility, Greenleaf Publishers, Sheffield, pp. 201-234.
Atkins, J.F., Solomon, A., Norton, S. and Joseph, N.L. (2015), “The emergence of integrated private
reporting”, Meditari Accountancy Research, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 28-61.
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, pp. 43-64.
Bebbington, J., Higgins, C. and Frame, B. (2009), “Initiating sustainable development reporting:
evidence from New Zealand”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 22 No. 4,
pp. 588-625.
Beck, C., Dumay, J. and Frost, G. (2015), “In pursuit of a ‘single source of truth’: from threatened
legitimacy to integrated reporting”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 141 No. 1, pp. 191-205.
Bernardi, C. and Stark, A.W. (2016), “Environmental, social and governance disclosure, integrated
reporting, and the accuracy of analyst forecasts”, The British Accounting Review, Vol. 50 No. 1,
pp. 16-31.
Black, J. (2008), “Forms and paradoxes of principles-based regulation”, Capital Markets Law Journal,
Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 425-457.
Brennan, N. and Merkl-Davies, D. (2014), “Rhetoric and argument in social and environmental
reporting: the Dirty Laundry case”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 27 No. 4,
pp. 602-633.
Brennan, N.M. and Solomon, J. (2008), “Corporate governance, accountability and mechanisms of
accountability: an overview”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 21 No. 7,
pp. 885-906.
Brivot, M. and Gendron, Y. (2011), “Beyond panopticism: on the ramifications of surveillance in a
contemporary professional setting”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 36 No. 3,
pp. 135-155.
Brown, J. and Dillard, J. (2014), “Integrated reporting: on the need for broadening out and opening up”,
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 27 No. 7, pp. 1120-1156.
Carels, C., Maroun, W. and Padia, N. (2013), “Integrated reporting in the South African mining sector”,
Corporate Ownership and Control, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 991-1005.
Cheng, M., Green, W., Conradie, P., Konishi, N. and Romi, A. (2014), “The international integrated
reporting framework: key issues and future research opportunities”, Journal of International
Financial Management & Accounting, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 90-119.
Cho, C.H., Roberts, R.W. and Patten, D.M. (2010), “The language of US corporate environmental
disclosure”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 431-443.
Cho, C.H., Laine, M., Roberts, R.W. and Rodrigue, M. (2015), “Organized hypocrisy, organizational
façades, and sustainability reporting”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 40,
pp. 78-94.
Cooper, D.J. and Robson, K. (2006), “Accounting, professions and regulation: locating the sites of
professionalization”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 31 Nos 4/5, pp. 415-444.
Cowton, C.J. and Dopson, S. (2002), “Foucault’s prison? Management control in an automotive Potential of
distributor”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 191-213. integrated
de Klerk, M. and de Villiers, C. (2012), “The value relevance of corporate responsibility reporting: South reporting
African evidence”, Meditari Accountancy Research, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 21-38.
de Villiers, C. and Alexander, D. (2014), “The institutionalisation of corporate social responsibility
reporting”, The British Accounting Review, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 198-212.
de Villiers, C. and Marques, A. (2016), “Corporate social responsibility, country-level predispositions, 1345
and the consequences of choosing a level of disclosure”, Accounting and Business Research,
Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 167-195.
De Villiers, C., Pei-Chi, K.H. and Maroun, W. (2017), “Developing a conceptual model of influences
around integrated reporting, new insights and directions for future research”, Meditari
Accountancy Research, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 450-460.
de Villiers, C., Rinaldi, L. and Unerman, J. (2014), “Integrated Reporting: insights, gaps and an
agenda for future research”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 27 No. 7,
pp. 1042-1067.
de Villiers, C., Rouse, P. and Kerr, J. (2016), “A new conceptual model of influences driving
sustainability based on case evidence of the integration of corporate sustainability management
control and reporting”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 136 No. A, pp. 78-85.
Dillard, J. and Reynolds, M. (2008), “Green owl and the corn maiden”, Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 556-579.
du Toit, E., van Zyl, R. and Schutte, G. (2017), “Integrated reporting by South African companies: a case
study”, Meditari Accountancy Research, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 654-674.
Dumay, J., Guthrie, J. and Farneti, F. (2010), “GRI sustainability reporting guidelines for public and
third sector organizations”, Public Management Review, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 531-548.
Durocher, S. and Gendron, Y. (2014), “Epistemic commitment and cognitive disunity toward fair-value
accounting”, Accounting and Business Research, Vol. 44 No. 6, pp. 630-655.
Eccles, R. and Saltzman, D. (2011), “Achieving sustainability through integrated reporting”,
Stanford Social Innovation Review, available at: http://202.154.59.182/mfile/files/Jurnal/MIT
%202012-2013%20(PDF )/Achieving%20Sustainability%20Through%20Integrated%20
Reporting.pdf
Eccles, R., Ioannou, I. and Serafeim, G. (2012), “The impact of corporate sustainability on organisational
processes and performance”, NBER working paper series, available at: www.nber.org/papers/
w17950.pdf
Eccles, R.G. and Krzus, M.P. (2010), “Integrated reporting for a sustainable strategy”, available at:
www.financialexecutives.org/KenticoCMS/Financial-Executive-Magazine/2010_03/Financial-
Reporting-Feature–March-2010.aspx#axzz48iuAkAHV (accessed 26 November 2012).
Flower, J. (2015), “The International Integrated Reporting Council: a story of failure”, Critical
Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 27, pp. 1-17.
Fogarty, T.J. (1992), “Organizational socialization in accounting firms: a theoretical framework
and agenda for future research”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 17 No. 2,
pp. 129-149.
Frost, G.R. and Seamer, M. (2002), “Adoption of environmental reporting and management practices:
an analysis of New South Wales public sector entities”, Financial Accountability & Management,
Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 103-127.
Gallhofer, S. and Haslam, J. (2003), Accounting and Emancipation: Some Critical Interventions,
Routledge, London and New York, NY.
Gray, R. (2010), “Is accounting for sustainability actually accounting for sustainability … and how
would we know? An exploration of narratives of organisations and the planet”, Accounting,
Organizations and Society, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 47-62.
AAAJ Gray, R., Walters, D., Bebbington, J. and Thompson, I. (1995), “The greening of enterprise: an
31,5 exploration of the (NON) role of environmental accounting and environmental accountants in
organizational change”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 211-239.
Guthrie, J., Manes-Rossi, F. and Orelli Rebecca, L. (2017), “Integrated reporting and integrated thinking
in Italian public sector organisations”, Meditari Accountancy Research, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 553-573.
Haller, A. and Staden, C.V. (2014), “The value added statement – an appropriate instrument for integrated
1346 reporting”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 27 No. 7, pp. 1190-1216.
Higgins, C., Stubbs, W. and Love, T. (2014), “Walking the talk(s): organisational narratives of integrated
reporting”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 27 No. 7, pp. 1090-1119.
Holland, J. (1998), “Private disclosure and financial reporting”, Accounting and Business Research,
Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 255-269.
Hopwood, A.G. (1987), “The archaeology of accounting systems”, Accounting, Organizations and
Society, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 207-234.
Hoskin, K.W. and Macve, R.H. (1986), “Accounting and the examination: a genealogy of disciplinary
power”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 105-136.
Hughen, L., Lulseged, A. and Upton, D. (2014), “Improving stakeholder value through sustainability
and integrated reporting”, CPA Journal, Vol. 84 No. 3, pp. 57-61.
IIRC (2014), “IIRC stakeholder feedback survey”, available at: http://integratedreporting.org/wp-content/
uploads/2016/12/IIRC-Stakeholder-Survey-Report-Findings.pdf (accessed 15 August 2016).
International Integrated Reporting Council’s (IIRC) (2013), “The international framework: integrated
reporting”, available at: www.theiirc.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/13-12-08-THE-
INTERNATIONAL-IR-FRAMEWORK-2-1.pdf (accessed 1 October 2013).
Integrated Reporting Committee of South Africa (IRCSA) (2011), “Framework for integrated reporting
and the integrated report”, available at: www.sustainabilitysa.org (accessed 5 June 2012).
IOD (2011), “Code for responsible investing in South Africa”, Lexis Nexus South Africa, Johannesburg.
Jensen, J.C. and Berg, N. (2012), “Determinants of traditional sustainability reporting versus integrated
reporting. An institutionalist approach”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 21 No. 5,
pp. 299-316.
Jones, M.J. and Solomon, J.F. (2013), “Problematising accounting for biodiversity”, Accounting, Auditing
& Accountability Journal, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 668-687.
King, M. (2012), “Comments on: comments on: integrated reporting and the integrated report, public
lecture”, International Corporate Governance Conference, Johannesburg, 23 October.
King, M. (2016), “Comments on: integrated reporting”, GARI Conference, Henley on Thames, 23 October.
KPMG (2011), “Integrated reporting: performance insight through better business reporting”, available at:
www.kpmg.com/Global/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/Documents/road-to-integrated-
reporting.pdf (accessed 26 November 2011).
KPMG (2015), “Currents of change. The KPMG survey of corporate responsibility reporting 2015”,
available at: https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/pdf/2016/02/kpmg-international-
survey-of-corporate-responsibility-reporting-2015.pdf (accessed 11 December 2016).
Larrinaga-Gonzalez, C. and Bebbington, J. (2001), “Accounting change or institutional appropriation?:
a case study of the implementation of environmental accounting”, Critical Perspectives on
Accounting, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 269-292.
Laughlin, R. (1995), “Empirical research in accounting: alternative approaches and a case for ‘middle-
range’ thinking”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 63-87.
Laughlin, R.C. (1991), “Environmental disturbances and organizational transitions and
transformations: some alternative models”, Organization Studies, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 209-232.
Leedy, P.D. and Ormrod, J.E. (2001), Practical Research: Planning and Design, Prentice Hall, NJ.
Llewellyn, S. (1994), “Managing the boundary: how accounting is implicated in maintaining the
organization”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 4-23.
McMillan, K.P. (2004), “Trust and the virtues: a solution to the accounting scandals?”, Critical Potential of
Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 15 Nos 6/7, pp. 943-953. integrated
Malsch, B. (2013), “Politicizing the expertise of the accounting industry in the realm of corporate social reporting
responsibility”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 149-168.
Malsch, B. and Gendron, Y. (2011), “Reining in auditors: on the dynamics of power surrounding an
‘innovation’ in the regulatory space”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 36 No. 7,
pp. 456-476. 1347
Marcia, A., Maroun, W. and Callaghan, C. (2015), “Value relevance and corporate responsibility in the
South African context: an alternate view post King-III”, South African Journal of Economic and
Management Sciences, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 500-519.
Maroun, W. and Atkins, J. (2014), “Whistle-blowing by external auditors in South Africa: enclosure,
efficient bodies and disciplinary power”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 27
No. 5, pp. 834-862.
Massa, L., Farneti, F. and Scappini, B. (2015), “Developing a sustainability report in a small to
medium enterprise: process and consequences”, Meditari Accountancy Research, Vol. 23 No. 1,
pp. 62-91.
Melnyk, S.A., Sroufe, R.P. and Calantone, R. (2003), “Assessing the impact of environmental
management systems on corporate and environmental performance”, Journal of Operations
Management, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 329-351.
Mennicken, A. and Miller, P. (2012), “Accounting, territorialization and power”, Foucault Studies,
Vol. 13, pp. 4-24.
Merkl-Davies, D.M., Brennan, N.M. and McLeay, S.J. (2011), “Impression management and retrospective
sense-making in corporate narratives: a social psychology perspective”, Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 315-344.
Meyer, J.W. and Rowan, B. (1977), “Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and
ceremony”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 83 No. 2, pp. 340-363.
Michelon, G., Pilonato, S. and Ricceri, F. (2015), “CSR reporting practices and the quality of disclosure:
an empirical analysis”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 33, pp. 59-78.
Miller, P. and O’Leary, T. (1987), “Accounting and the construction of the governable person”,
Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 235-265.
O’Dwyer, B., Owen, D. and Unerman, J. (2011), “Seeking legitimacy for new assurance forms: the case of
assurance on sustainability reporting”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 36 No. 1,
pp. 31-52.
Ouchi, W. (1979), “A conceptual framework for the design of organizational control mechanisms”,
Management Science, Vol. 25 No. 9, pp. 833-848.
Pesqueux, Y. (2005), “Corporate governance and accounting systems: a critical perspective”, Critical
Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 797-823.
PwC (2014), “The value creation journey: a survey of JSE Top-40 companies’ integrated reports”,
available at: www.pwc.co.za/en/assets/pdf/integrated-reporting-survey-2014.pdf (accessed
7 August 2015).
PwC (2015), “Integrated reporting where to next?”, available at: www.pwc.co.za/en/assets/pdf/
integrated-reporting-survey-2015.pdf (accessed 16 February 2016).
Raemaekers, K., Maroun, W. and Padia, N. (2016), “Risk disclosures by South African listed companies
post-King III”, South African Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 41-60.
Roberts, J. (2009), “No one is perfect: the limits of transparency and an ethic for ‘intelligent’
accountability”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 34 No. 8, pp. 957-970.
Samkin, G., Schneider, A. and Tappin, D. (2014), “Developing a reporting and evaluation
framework for biodiversity”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 27 No. 3,
pp. 527-562.
AAAJ Siddiqui, J. (2013), “Mainstreaming biodiversity accounting: potential implications for a developing
31,5 economy”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 779-805.
Smith, K.K. (1982), “Philosophical problems in thinking about organizational change”, in Goodman, P.S.
et al. (Eds), Change in Organizations, Josey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 316-374.
Solomon, J. and Maroun, W. (2012), Integrated Reporting: The New Face of Social, Ethical and
Environmental Reporting in South Africa?, The Association of Chartered Certified
Accountants, London.
1348
Solomon, J.F., Solomon, A., Joseph, N.L. and Norton, S.D. (2013), “Impression management, myth
creation and fabrication in private social and environmental reporting: insights from Erving
Goffman”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 195-213.
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.
Stubbs, W. and Higgins, C. (2014), “Integrated reporting and internal mechanisms of change”,
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 27 No. 7, pp. 1068-1089.
Tregidga, H., Milne, M. and Kearins, K. (2014), “Re)presenting ‘sustainable organizations’ ”, Accounting,
Organizations and Society, Vol. 39 No. 6, pp. 477-494.
Tremblay, M.-S. and Gendron, Y. (2011), “Governance prescriptions under trial: on the interplay
between the logics of resistance and compliance in audit committees”, Critical Perspectives on
Accounting, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 259-272.
Unerman, J. and O’Dwyer, B. (2004), “Enron, WorldCom, Andersen et al.: a challenge to modernity”,
Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 15 Nos 6/7, pp. 971-993.
van Zijl, W. and Maroun, W. (2017), “Discipline and punish: exploring the application of IFRS 10 and
IFRS 12”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 44, pp. 42-58.
Vinnari, E. and Laine, M. (2013), “Just a passing fad?: the diffusion and decline of environmental
reporting in the Finnish water sector”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 26
No. 7, pp. 1107-1134.
Walsh, E.J. and Stewart, R.E. (1993), “Accounting and the construction of institutions: the case of a
factory”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 18 Nos 7/8, pp. 783-800.
Yin, R.K. (2013), Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods, Sage Publications,
Los Angeles, CA.

Further reading
Dumay, J., Bernardi, C., Guthrie, J. and La Torre, M. (2017), “Barriers to implementing the international
integrated reporting framework: a contemporary academic perspective”, Meditari Accountancy
Research, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 461-480.

About the authors

Mary-Anne McNally is Chartered Accountant based at one of South Africa’s large commerical
banks. This paper is based on her postgraudate research at the University of the
Witeatersrand. Mary-Anne McNally is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
Mary-Anne.Mcleish@wits.ac.za
Warren Maroun is Professor of Accounting at the University of Witwtaersrand.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com