The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The readability of integrated reports
Abstract
Purpose: This is an exploratory study to investigate the readability of integrated reports. The aim of this paper is to assess whether integrated reports are accessible to their readership and add value to stakeholders. Design/methodology/approach: Readability analyses are performed on the integrated reports of all companies listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange for 2015 and 2016. Readability results are compared by means of a correlation analysis to the results of the Ernst & Young Excellence in Integrated Reporting Awards for 2015. Findings: The results show that the complex nature of the language used in integrated reports of listed companies impairs readability and, as an implication, affects the value stakeholders can derive from the information. The results from the correlation with the Ernst & Young Excellence in Integrated Reporting Awards indicate that an integrated report is considered of higher quality if it is written using complex language. Research limitations/implications: The main limitation of the study lies in its exclusively South African setting, which is the only country where integrated reports are recommended as part of stock exchange listings requirements. Another limitation is the fact that integrated reports are mainly aimed at informed users and is thus compiled with the informed reader in mind, which impacts on general readability. Practical implications: The results present new findings regarding integrated reporting practice, which is of interest to firms, investors, regulators, amongst others. The findings show how the value-added by integrated reports could be improved. Originality/value: This study is the first to investigate the readability of integrated reports in a South African context. The results indicate that integrated reports are difficult to read and are only useful to a portion of the total intended population.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Flesch, R. (1948) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0057532 · Cited by 5,391
Milne, M. J., & Gray, R. (2013) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1543-8 · Cited by 1,240
The economic consequences associated with integrated report quality: Capital market and real effects
Barth, M. E., Cahan, S. F., Chen, L., & Venter, E. R. (2017) · Accounting, Organizations and Society · doi:10.1016/j.aos.2017.08.005 · Cited by 602 · cited 1×
“The EY ranking is selected for this study, since the rating focuses on disclosure in terms of whether the integrated report gives the reader a sense of the fundamental issues important to the company (Barth et al., 2017), which is the essence of this study.”
BackgroundCommunicating CSR: Integrated approach or Selfie? Evidence from the Milan Stock Exchange
Montecchia, A., Giordano, F., & Grieco, C. (2016) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.099 · Cited by 69
Cited by
Evaluating the integrated reporting journey: insights, gaps and agendas for future research
Rinaldi, L., Unerman, J., & de Villiers, C. (2018) · Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal · doi:10.1108/aaaj-04-2018-3446 · Cited by 282
Metadata
- Authors
- du Toit, E.
- Venue
- Meditari Accountancy Research
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2017-10-02
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 629-653
- ISSN
- 1022-2529 (ISSN-L)
- 2049-372X
- OpenAlex
- W2749803758
- Cited by
- 160
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 21.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The readability of integrated reports. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1108/medar-07-2017-0165
- The paper
- du Toit, E. (2017). The readability of integrated reports. Meditari Accountancy Research. https://doi.org/10.1108/medar-07-2017-0165
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.