Barriers to Implementing the International Integrated Reporting Framework: A Contemporary Academic Perspective

Purpose: This paper is motivated by the International Integrated Reporting Council’s (IIRC) call for feedback from all stakeholders with knowledge of the International Integrated Reporting Framework , and specifically of the enablers, incentives and barriers to its implementation. The paper synthesises insights from contemporary accounting research into integrated reporting (IR) as a general concept, and integrated reporting as espoused by the IIRC in the (IIRC, 2013). We specifically focus on possible barriers and emphasise the specific issues we feel could be rectified to advance the , along with the areas that may potentially hinder wider adoption and implementation. Design/methodology/approach: The paper draws upon and synthesises academic analysis and insights provided in the IR and academic literature as well as various directives, policy and framework pronouncements. Findings: The flexibility and lack of prescription concerning actual disclosures and metrics in the could allow it to be used for compliance, regardless of the other benefits lauded by the IIRC. Thus we see forces, both external and internal, driving adoption, with one prominent example being the European Union Directive on non-financial reporting. Because of the different ways in which IR is understood and enacted, there are numerous theoretical and empirical challenges for academics. Our paper highlights potential areas for further robust academic research, and the need to contribute to policy and practice. Research limitations/implications: The paper provides the IIRC, academics, regulators and reporting organisations with insights into current practice and the framework. We highlight the need for further development and evidence to help inform improvements both from a policy and a practice perspective. A key limitation of our work is that we draw upon a synthesis of the existing literature which is still in an early stage of development. Originality/value: The paper provides the IIRC with several insights into the current , and specifically with the enablers, incentives and barriers to its implementation. Also, it provides academic researchers with a number of important observations and an agenda upon which they can build their future research

Contractor tendering research: Going beyond bid/no-bid and markup models

Within a wider research programme into the effectiveness and efficiency of the tendering procedures of construction contractors (CCs), a content analysis of tender research published in 27 journals between 2010 and 2016 found that CC tendering procedure research remains a low-focus area. CC-related tender research commonly focuses on factors influencing ‘bid/no-bid’ and markup decisions, often combined with developed decision modelling. Comparing the content analysis results with semi-structured interviews with 20 Australian civil engineering CCs (including some of Australia’s largest contractors, and with eight involved in international operations), it was found that the industry remains largely unaware and unsupportive of such developed tender decision tools. Instead, CCs suggest tender research should focus on efficient tendering procedures, encouraging clients to use standard rather than bespoke contracts, and improved quality and risk transfer in tender documents. The combined semi-structured interview findings and content analysis results provide researchers with contemporary tender research themes that civil engineering CCs, and potentially more general contractors, are more likely to embrace, thereby advancing the efficiency of construction tendering and contractors’ work procurement management

Is prior director experience valuable?

Previous studies have investigated the effectiveness of directors in performing their monitoring and advising functions by examining characteristics such as independence, qualifications and professional expertise. In this study, we propose a more direct measure of director effectiveness – prior experience as a director. Using hand-collected data from Australia, we find that both the depth (number of prior years) and breadth (number of current directorships) of a new appointee’s director experience is valued by shareholders at appointment. In particular, the market reaction is highest for appointees with the most prior director experience (two or more other current directorships in listed companies and four or more years of director experience) and when experienced appointees join less-experienced boards