Improving integrated reporting

The purpose of this paper is to present a new learning and growth perspective for the balanced scorecard (BSC) that includes more specific measures of integrated thinking and value creation to help improve integrated reporting ( ). Practical, relevant definitions of these historically vague concepts may improve intangible asset disclosures (IAD) and increase uptake of the framework.,The paper is conceptual. The authors use organisational learning to theorise about the learning and growth perspective of the BSC, within the context of the practice of IAD.,Several criticisms of IAD, the framework and the BSC have acted as barriers to implementing the framework. The improved version of the BSC’s learning and growth perspective, presented in this paper, addresses those criticisms by redefining the concept of integrated thinking (learning) and more fully connecting that learning to future value creation (growth). The model is designed to be used in tandem with the framework to operationalise integrated thinking. A new BSC strategy map illustrates how this revised learning and growth perspective interacts with the other three BSC perspectives to create long-term shareholder value through the management and growth of knowledge within an organisation.,Organisational learning is an important source of competitive advantage in the modern knowledge economy. Here, the authors encourage further debate on how to report and disclose information on intangible assets, driven by a new conceptual strategy for organisational learning that fully supports the BSC’s capacity to help integrated thinking and future value creation for the framework.,From its roots as a performance measurement system, the BSC has become a widely used strategy execution tool. The framework has struggled to gain traction, but still has value in exploring intangible assets and its disclosure from a systems thinking perspective. The model is designed to bring an explicit understanding of how to improve integrated thinking for the framework facilitating better measurement, management and reporting of human and structural capital. By doing so, the new model enables a firm to use the BSC to engage with more effectively, which should also be useful for practitioners given the widespread use of the BSC.,The analysis of the BSC’s learning and growth perspective reveals two dichotomies – one between resources and growth, and another between systems and capability. The revised perspective resolves these dichotomies with clear, forward-focused measures of learning and intangible asset growth, and multiple vertical and horizontal connections between the perspective’s four constructs. The authors demonstrate practical paths to value creation through a range of strategic impacts.

[1]  R. Grant.  Reflections on knowledge-based approaches to the organization of production , 2013 .

[2]  Cristiano Busco,et al.  In Search of the “Perfect One”: How accounting as a maieutic machine sustains inventions through generative ‘ in -tensions’ , 2017, Management Accounting Research.

[3]  J. Guthrie,et al.  Reflections and projections: A decade of Intellectual Capital Accounting Research , 2012 .

[4]  Kittiya Yongvanich,et al.  An Extended Performance Reporting Framework for Social and Environmental Accounting , 2005 .

[5]  J. Guthrie,et al.  Integrated Reporting and Integrating Thinking: Practical Challenges , 2018, Challenges in Managing Sustainable Business.

[6]  H. Tsoukas,et al.  What is Organizational Knowledge , 2001 .

[7]  Robert M. Grant,et al.  The knowledge-based view of the firm: Implications for management practice , 1997 .

[8]  Robert S. Kaplan,et al.  Conceptual Foundations of the Balanced Scorecard , 2010 .

[9]  John Dumay.  A Critical Reflection on the Future of Intellectual Capital: From Reporting to Disclosure , 2016 .

[10]  P. Hepworth,et al.  Weighing it up ‐ a literature review for the balanced scorecard , 1998 .

[11]  Gary P. Pisano,et al.  Learning How and Learning What: Effects of Tacit and Codified Knowledge on Performance Improvement Following Technology Adoption , 2003, Decis. Sci..

[12]  J. Guthrie,et al.  Integrated reporting: A structured literature review , 2016 .

[13]  A. Neely,et al.  The dynamics of value creation: mapping your intellectual performance drivers , 2004 .

[14]  Mark Aakhus,et al.  Conversations for reflection , 2007 .

[15]  John Dumay,et al.  Integrated thinking as a cultural control , 2017 .

[16]  R. Kaplan,et al.  The strategy map: guide to aligning intangible assets , 2004 .

[17]  John Dumay,et al.  Intellectual capital disclosure: a structured literature review , 2017 .

[18]  David P. Lepak,et al.  Examining the Human Resource Architecture: The Relationships Among Human Capital, Employment, and Human Resource Configurations , 2002 .

[19]  Stefano Bresciani,et al.  Exploring voluntary external disclosure of intellectual capital in listed companies: An integrated intellectual capital disclosure conceptual model , 2017 .

[20]  D. Tweedie,et al.  Exploring integrated thinking in integrated reporting – an exploratory study in Australia , 2017 .

[21]  M. Lubatkin,et al.  Proposing and Testing an Intellectual Capital-Based View of the Firm , 2006 .

[22]  J. Oliver,et al.  Conceptualising integrated thinking in practice , 2016 .

[23]  Rada K. Massingham,et al.  Does knowledge management produce practical outcomes? , 2014, J. Knowl. Manag..

[24]  C. Nielsen,et al.  Discourses of transparency in the intellectual capital reporting debate: Moving from generic reporting models to management defined information , 2009 .

[25]  R. Roslender,et al.  Moving from irrelevant intellectual capital (IC) reporting to value-relevant IC disclosures: Key learning points from the Danish experience , 2017 .

[26]  J. Guthrie,et al.  Barriers to Implementing the International Integrated Reporting Framework: A Contemporary Academic Perspective , 2017 .

[27]  Ray Reagans,et al.  Network Structure and Knowledge Transfer: The Effects of Cohesion and Range , 2003 .

[28]  M. Riggs,et al.  Development and Validation of Self-Efficacy and Outcome Expectancy Scales for Job-Related Applications , 1994 .

[29]  Jan Mouritsen,et al.  Intellectual capital and the 'capable firm': narrating, visualising and numbering for managing knowledge , 2001 .

[30]  R. Eisenberger,et al.  Perceived Organizational Support and Employee Diligence, Commitment, and Innovation , 1990 .

[31]  John Dumay,et al.  Intellectual capital research: a critical examination of the third stage , 2013 .

[32]  Morten Lund,et al.  Killing the balanced scorecard to improve internal disclosure , 2017 .