TITLE:
A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF
INTEGRATED REPORT IN UNIVERSITY OF
EDINBURGH AND ANNUAL REPORT IN
UNIVERSITY SAINS MALAYSIA
Agenda 01 INTRODUCTION
Style 02 LITERATURE REVIEW
03 METHODOLOGY
04 FINDING
05 RECOMMENDATION
06 CONCLUSION
INTRODUCTION
An integrated report (IR) "is a concise
IR is a comprehensive evaluation of the
communication on how an organization's
factors that contribute to the creation of
strategy, governance, performance, and
value for a firm over the short, intermediate,
prospects in the context of its external
and long durations - values of a company are
environment led to the creation, preservation,
shaped by its financial and non-financial
or erosion of value over the short, medium,
assets, such as its human and intellectual
and long terms" (International Integrated
capital and its social standing.
Reporting Council, 2021).
The IR reporting approach is one of the
effective approach – that may be made The IR's preparation and presentation are
available to all stakeholders – aims to bring informed by (1) guiding concepts, and (2)
about an integrated perspective for the content aspects
future.
The fact that universities are educating future
Many institutions and organizations all over generations renders the things they tell about
the world publish IR.- IR offers organizations themselves more valuable – universities
a more attractive and efficient way to tell conduct research studies, establish
their stories. collaboration with industries and mutual
relationship with society.
Universities create value in their activities Our study aims to comparatively examine the
and contribute to the value created by integrated reports published by University of
different segments of society (British Edinburgh (UE) and University Sains Malaysia
Universities Finance Director Group, 2016) (USM).
Study Objectives:
To examine the IR’s compliance in UE and
01 USM with the guiding principles and
content elements.
To reveal the value
02 creation/business model in the IRs
published by UE and USM.
Study Questions:
Do the IR’s published by UE and USM
01 comply with the guiding principles and
content elements?
Is the value creation/business
02 model in the IRs published by UE
and USM?
LITERATURE REVIEW
IR in Higher Education Institution:
Brusca et al (2018):
Adhikariparajul et al (2019): Concluded that universities, which
Stated that universities began to adapt published sustainability reports and
the integrated thinking approach to their integrated reports, had a significant
activities. impact on managerial process,
accountability and successful practices
related to the organization’s strategic
goals.
Lacuzzi et al (2020):
Concluded that the integrated reporting
approach was a great importance in
conducting actitivities according to the
strategic objectives and the requirements
of the era.
IR in Higher Education Institution:
Aysenur Taracioglu et al (2022):
Stated that contributions of integrated reporting to universities are as follows:
i. IR offers a chance to convey the extent to which the organizations would
create value- short, medium and long run on issues.
ii. IR provides readability as well as guiding principles and content elements on
which its framework focuses. – make use of tables, figure and visual in a clear
and fun to read.
iii. IR different from financial reports that describe what has been done in the
past. – also focused on the future.
METHODOLOGY
QUALITATIVE METHOD
01 • Using secondary data
• Annual reports of University of
Edinburgh(UE) 2021 and University Sains
Malaysia (USM) 2021
Content analysis criteria
• Content analysis criteria were used to
code examples of integrated reporting
and more traditional approaches to
sustainability reporting.
02
• Related to IR Framework
GUIDELINE PRINCIPLES
• Determine the framework for the preparation of
03
an IR.
• Provide information about the content of the
report and indicate the extent to which the
information is presented.
• Has 7 principle (Table2).
CONTENT ELEMENTS
• IR contains 8 content items that are
fundamentally linked and not mutually
•
exclusive. (Table 3)
Reports examined within the scope of the
study were evaluated regarding the
04
organizational overview and external
environment and so on.
CONTENT ANALYSIS CRITERIA FOR IR:
TABLE 1: Decision rule
Fully Disclosed Not Disclosed
If the item fully disclosed the item is marked If the item did not disclose the item is marked
as PRESENT. as ABSENT.
Table 2: Guiding principles
Guiding Principles Disclosure indicators
i. Strategic focus and future Risks and opportunities; Current performance; Outlook; Targets;
orientation
[Link] of information Performance in the past, present, and future; monetary and non-monetary data;
qualitative and quantitative data
[Link] relationships Engagement; Transparency and accountability; Responsibilities as stewards
iv. Materiality Process for determining relevance; Identification of pertinent issues; Evaluation
and ranking of essential issues; Decide on what information to reveal. This is the
area in which you can report Accounting and reporting organisation; Opportunities,
threats, and outcomes are all considered.
v. Conciseness In-depth information; Clear expression of ideas; Preference for simple language
[Link] and completeness Completion; Cost/Benefit; Competitive advantage; Future-oriented knowledge;
Reliability; Balance; Freedom from material error;
[Link] and comparability Industry standards; Indicators from the industry association; Ratios.
Table 3: Content elements
Content Elements Disclosure indicators
i. Organisational overview and Goals and objectives; Key operations; The Business Environment as a Whole
external environment
ii. Business model The primary sources of supply and demand; the processes and products of
commercial enterprises
iii. Outlook Future trends; the influence of trends; potential outcomes Future trends; the
influence of trends; potential outcomes
iv. Basis of preparation and Reporting Boundaries; Materiality Criteria; Internal Procedures and Preparation
presentation
v. Strategy and resource Strategic goals include methods for achieving objectives; allocation of resources;
allocation and tracking of progress.
vi. Risks and opportunities mindset; identification of potential risks; assessment of potential opportunities; risk
mitigation
vii. Governance Structure of the board; adherence to the CG code; compensation of the board and
its members; shareholders; transactions involving related parties
viii. Performance monetary capital; human capital; intellectual capital; accumulated knowledge and
experience; and natural capital
FINDINGS
FINDING 1: Comparative Analysis of UE and USM
From the finding, it is clear that:
i. UE has comply with all guiding principle
requirements.
ii. USM also comply with 5 guiding principle and
didn’t comply 2 principle requirement
(materiality & reliability and completeness).
FINDING 1: Comparative Analysis of UE and USM
From the finding, it is clear that:
i. UE has comply with all content elements in
IR.
ii. USM also comply with 5 content elements
and didn’t comply 3 content elements.
FINDING 2: Value creation model of UE and USM
From the finding Table 4.1 and 4.2,
it is clear that:
UE has a value creation model/business model in the IR published compared to
USM.
i. IR in UE all material matters, whether in positive or negative and presented on
a consisted basis over time. – show the ability to create value over time.
ii. IR in UE presents a holistic view of the combination of factors that affect the
organizations’s ability to create value over time, their interrelationships and
depencies among them.
iii. Analysing the IR in UE in terms of materiality – give significant affect to create
value in the short, medium and long run.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Higher education institution (USM) often present financial
& non financial information – as not interesting to the
financial information users – must follow up on the
visibility of the information in the digital domain.
USM should uses creative writing on IR report as well as
the IR in the UE – provide more information related to the
IR requirements.
To improve the IRs published by UE and USM – an
appropriate approach for reporting organizations and
stakeholders group is important – to explain strategy,
management, performance and future goals with a
completed, balanced and holistic perspective.
USM and UE need to improve integrated thinking – for
aims to create value in their IR.
CONCLUSION
❖ Education is one of the most powerful tools for
sustainable development and the importance of
educational institutions in social transformation is
commonly accepted as an indisputable fact.
❖ The study concludes that integrated reporting is
very crucial for higher education institutions and a
value-added generating activity for stakeholders.
❖ Higher education institution play an important role
in raising future generations to adopt concept of
integrated thinking, value creation and
sustainability by future generations.
