Analyzing performance measurement systems in integrated reports: evidence and contextual factors

Purpose Despite an increasing number of integrated reports, it remains unclear whether companies are practicing symbolic integrated reporting without organizational change or committing to substantive internal changes based on integrated thinking. This paper intends to enhance understanding by analyzing the performance measurement systems of companies that publish integrated reports. Furthermore, contextual factors that may explain differences in performance measurement systems are investigated. Design/methodology/approach Content analysis of 95 integrated reports from an international sample was conducted. The analysis was based on a conceptual framework containing 20 variables, indicating symbolic or substantive integrated reporting. For each company, an integrated thinking index was calculated. Contextual factors were examined with t-tests and U-tests. Findings Integrated reports indicate limited organizational change. Features of performance measurement systems that signal symbolic integrated reporting include insufficient connectivity between performance objectives, limited coverage of target values and linkage of executive rewards systems with financial criteria. Firms tend to use more sophisticated performance measurement systems when they practice integrated reporting for multiple years. Research limitations/implications Studies on integrated thinking are rare and primarily based on case studies. This study offers new insights into internal aspects of integrated reporting through a content analysis of a diverse sample. Practical implications Findings suggest that integrated thinking through performance measurement systems enhances within a continuous cycle of integrated reporting and integrated thinking. Originality/value This paper presents a unique research approach for investigating organizational change reflected by integrated thinking.