The Impact of Corporate Reporting Quality on Sustainable Growth Through Integrated Reporting Lens in Thai Listed Companies

Abstract

The study investigates the relationship between corporate reporting quality, viewed through an integrated reporting perspective, and sustainable growth among Thai-listed companies during the period from 2019 to 2022. Utilizing a sample of 59 SET50 companies and analyzing 232 annual reports, an Integrated Reporting Quality Index (IRQI) was developed to assess reporting quality across three principal components—capitals, guiding principles, and content elements—as well as their respective sub-components, enabling comprehensive evaluation at both macro and micro levels. Although the component-level analysis identified no significant relationships with sustainable growth, the sub-component analysis revealed critical insights. Information connectivity, conciseness, and business model disclosure demonstrated positive associations with sustainable growth, whereas strategic focus exhibited a negative relationship. These findings contribute to the extension of stakeholders and signaling theories within emerging market contexts, emphasizing the importance of effective communication mechanisms over the sheer volume of disclosures. The study further documents substantial improvements in reporting quality following the implementation of the One Report framework, suggesting that well-designed regulatory interventions can elevate corporate disclosure standards. The results offer valuable implications for managers, regulators, and investors, underscoring that fostering effective information connectivity, conciseness, and clear articulation of business models contributes more significantly to sustainable growth than simply increasing the quantity of disclosed information.

1. Introduction

Companies listed on the Stock Exchange of Thailand increasingly encounter pressure to demonstrate a genuine commitment to sustainable business practices within an intensifying global competitive environment. In response to this trend, the Stock Exchange of Thailand introduced the Sustainable Capital Market Development Plan 2022–2027 and mandated the adoption of the 56-1 One Report format in 2022, requiring the disclosure of integrated financial and non-financial information within a single annual report (SEC Thailand, 2021). The introduction of such regulatory measures represents a pivotal milestone in promoting integrated reporting practices among Thai organizations. Despite a growing number of Thai companies initiating integrated reporting approaches (Petcharat, 2020), substantial implementation challenges remain, largely stemming from inherent market characteristics and organizational capacity limitations (Suttipun & Bomlai, 2019). Although KPMG’s recent survey identified notable progress among Thai listed companies, integrated reporting practices continue to evolve incrementally, gradually shifting from early-stage disclosures toward a more comprehensive and strategic integration of financial and non-financial performance indicators (KPMG Thailand, 2024).

Corporate reporting has undergone substantial transformation recently, evolving beyond a traditional emphasis on financial indicators, which, although fundamental, remain inadequate for capturing an organization’s capacity for sustainable development and long-term value creation (Serafeim, 2015). As a result, reporting practices have shifted toward more holistic approaches, initially incorporating standalone Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) reports, advancing to sustainability reporting, and ultimately culminating in the development of Integrated Reporting (IR) frameworks (Michelon et al., 2015). From a theoretical perspective, the shift to integrated reporting is backed by two main ideas: stakeholder theory suggests that thorough reporting meets the different needs of stakeholders who are important for achieving sustainable growth beyond just focusing on shareholders (Freeman et al., 2018), while signaling theory views high-quality reporting as a way for companies to show their long-term value to investors, helping to reduce information gaps and support better resource allocation that aligns with sustainable development goals (Anifowose et al., 2020). Based on these theories, the Integrated Reporting framework was created to offer a clear way to assess the quality of reports using three main parts: capitals, guiding principles, and content elements (IIRC, 2013; Zhou et al., 2017). Using this framework helps organizations explain how they create sustainable value in a way that meets the needs of various stakeholders through clear and complete reports (Busco et al., 2013). Assessment of reporting quality based on the IR framework reflects a growing recognition that sustainable business success increasingly hinges not only on financial outcomes but also on the effective management of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) responsibilities, which constitute essential dimensions of long-term sustainable development (Abdul Rahman & Alsayegh, 2021).

High-quality integrated reporting possesses the potential to advance an organization’s sustainable growth by enhancing stakeholder communication, promoting more efficient resource allocation, and supporting decision-making processes informed by comprehensive and interconnected information sets (Barth et al., 2020; Zhou et al., 2017). Thus, the relationship between integrated reporting quality and sustainable growth has emerged as a significant area of inquiry within Asian emerging markets (Anifowose et al., 2020; Radwan & Wang, 2024), including Thailand (Sriersan et al., 2024; Suttipun et al., 2023). Despite growing scholarly attention, a substantial research gap persists. Much of the existing research in emerging economies has concentrated primarily on the short-term financial performance impacts of integrated reporting (Barth et al., 2016; Pirgaip & Rizvić, 2023), often neglecting dimensions related to future value creation, particularly sustainable growth, which serves as a crucial indicator of an organization’s long-term strategic success. Empirical studies specifically investigating the impact of integrated reporting quality on sustainable growth outcomes remain scarce (Dumay et al., 2016; de Villiers et al., 2014). Moreover, although the mandatory adoption of the One Report format in Thailand signifies an important regulatory initiative aimed at strengthening sustainability disclosure, the extent to which this policy shift effectively fosters sustainable growth within organizations has yet to be systematically examined. The present study seeks to address this critical gap by exploring both the component-level and detailed sub-component-level relationships between integrated reporting quality and sustainable growth during a pivotal transitional phase. Developing a deeper understanding of these relationships is imperative, particularly as organizations operating in Thailand face mounting pressures to simultaneously demonstrate excellence in reporting practices and genuine commitments to sustainable business development, in alignment with the comprehensive disclosure standards introduced through the One Report framework.

The present research addresses the identified gap by investigating the impact of corporate reporting quality on sustainable growth among Thai listed companies through the lens of integrated reporting, aiming to provide empirical evidence on how reporting practices influence a company’s capacity to achieve sustainable development objectives. The novelty of the study lies in its movement beyond traditional short-term financial indicators by incorporating the sustainable growth rate as a comprehensive metric that more accurately reflects an organization’s long-term viability. Furthermore, reporting quality was rigorously assessed through a meticulously constructed Integrated Reporting Quality Index, encompassing three main components and twenty-one sub-components of the Integrated Reporting Framework, thereby facilitating analysis at both macro and micro levels. Through the application of this nuanced analytical approach, findings reveal that, although component-level assessments exhibited limited associations with sustainable growth, sub-component analyses identified specific reporting elements—namely, information connectivity, conciseness, and business model disclosure—as positively influencing sustainable growth, whereas strategic focus demonstrated a negative relationship. The study advances both theoretical understanding and practical applications by enriching knowledge concerning the reporting quality–sustainable growth nexus in emerging markets, offering valuable insights for policymakers seeking to refine reporting standards, and providing actionable recommendations for corporate executives and stakeholders regarding the strategic importance of high-quality integrated reporting for fostering sustainable business development. Implications extend further to the domain of corporate communication strategies, suggesting that the quality and method of information presentation exert a more significant influence on sustainable growth outcomes than the sheer volume of disclosures.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Theoretical Framework

Two theoretical frameworks support the connection between corporate reporting quality and sustainable growth, which explains the internal and external mechanisms of this relationship. The foundational principles of stakeholder theory (Freeman et al., 2018) help organizations learn to generate value by building relationships with multiple stakeholders who extend beyond shareholders. According to this theory, corporate reporting acts as a communication bridge between organizations and their stakeholders, where quality reporting meets various information requirements and fosters sustainable development by enhancing stakeholder relationships (Cosmulese et al., 2019). Organizations that maintain effective communication channels with stakeholders can access resources easily while simultaneously managing risks and spotting business opportunities, which together form the foundation of sustainable growth (Burke & Clark, 2016).

Signaling theory complements this framework by explaining how quality reporting affects external perceptions and decisions. This theory suggests that high-quality corporate reporting serves as a signal of organizational quality, competence, and commitment to transparency (Sun et al., 2022). By reducing information asymmetry between the organization and external stakeholders, particularly capital providers, quality reporting enhances corporate reputation and credibility (Radwan & Wang, 2024) and facilitates access to financing at lower costs (Pirgaip & Rizvić, 2023)-all critical factors for sustainable growth.

These theories work well together to help us understand how the quality of integrated reporting affects sustainable growth: stakeholder theory shows how managing relationships creates value, and signaling theory looks at how others see the company and how resources are allocated (Anifowose et al., 2020). The integration of these theoretical perspectives proves particularly salient within emerging market contexts such as Thailand, where market information efficiency remains in a state of development and stakeholder reporting cultures continue to evolve in response to regulatory and economic transformations.

2.2. Integrated Reporting Framework and Corporate Report Quality

Corporate reporting from an integrated perspective represents a fundamental transformation in the way organizations communicate their value creation processes and performance to stakeholders. Such an approach transcends traditional financial reporting by offering a holistic perspective that highlights the interconnections between organizational value drivers, business models, strategic objectives, and the external environment. Central to this evolution is the integration of financial and non-financial information, facilitated through the adoption of the Integrated Reporting Framework (IR Framework), which has contributed to significant enhancements in corporate reporting quality across multiple dimensions. Empirical evidence from Pistoni et al. (2018) indicates that organizations implementing the IR Framework exhibit marked improvements in reporting quality, particularly regarding information completeness and the coherence between strategy and performance disclosures. Similar findings by García-Sánchez and Noguera-Gámez (2017) demonstrate that strict adherence to the IR Framework generates reports characterized by higher levels of transparency, comprehensiveness, and decision-usefulness for stakeholders (Kamotho et al., 2022). Additionally, research by Rabaya and Saleh (2022) underscores that the implementation of the IR Framework strengthens the quality of sustainability disclosures and enhances the communication of long-term value creation efforts.

The IR Framework presents a systematic approach to explaining organizational value creation processes by promoting integrated thinking that encompasses various operational dimensions including financial, social, environmental, and governance aspects (IIRC, 2013). The integration of these dimensions is reflected through the framework’s fundamental concept of value creation across three-time horizons: short, medium, and long term, demonstrating a focus on business sustainability. Zhou et al. (2019) confirmed the effectiveness of this approach, finding that organizations with comprehensive planning and reporting across all three-time horizons demonstrated superior risk management capabilities and more stable operational performance.

The integrated reporting framework has three main elements: Fundamental Concepts, Guiding Principles, and Content Elements. Each component plays a crucial role in reporting quality and organizational sustainability, as detailed below:

The Fundamental Concepts that form the foundation of integrated reporting include two primary elements: Capital and Value Creation. The concept of Capitals divides organizational resources and relationships into six categories, which are financial capital, manufactured capital, intellectual capital, human capital, social and relationship capital, and natural capital, representing essential assets that businesses use and affect during their operations. Value Creation places importance on explaining organizational processes that generate or destroy value over various time periods while revealing the complex interactions between business activities and different types of capital within the external environment.

Guiding Principles set the basic rules for creating and presenting reports, which include seven important ideas: focusing on strategy and the future, connecting information, building relationships with stakeholders, considering what is important, being concise, ensuring reliability and completeness, and maintaining consistency and comparability.

Content Elements provide the structure for organizing and presenting information in reports, comprising eight elements covering organizational overview to reporting criteria. These include organizational overview and external environment, governance, business model, risks and opportunities, strategy and resource allocation, performance, outlook, and basis of preparation and presentation.

The effective implementation of the IR Framework enhances reporting quality and contributes to organizational sustainability across multiple dimensions. Barth et al. (2016) found that organizations with high reporting quality according to the Integrated Reporting Quality Index (IRQI) demonstrate improved fundraising capabilities and increased investor confidence. Rahman et al. (2023) further indicated that integrating the ESG Disclosure Score with IR Framework reporting enhances organizational sustainability communication effectiveness.

Studies conducted within emerging market contexts have revealed nuanced dimensions regarding the application of the Integrated Reporting (IR) Framework. Research findings (AbuRaya, 2024; Sabelfeld et al., 2024) indicate that institutional factors, cultural characteristics, and varying levels of capital market development significantly influence both the form and effectiveness of integrated reporting, particularly in terms of adapting its principles to local conditions. Further supporting evidence from Radwan and Wang (2024) demonstrates that organizations capable of tailoring the IR Framework to their specific contextual realities not only achieve enhanced reporting quality but also exhibit greater flexibility and resilience in addressing evolving business challenges (Pirgaip & Rizvić, 2023). Effective implementation of the IR Framework in emerging markets, therefore, depends not merely on strict compliance with standardized guidelines but also on the capacity to integrate core concepts of integrated reporting with unique market dynamics and stakeholder expectations, ultimately facilitating sustainable improvements in reporting quality and fostering long-term value creation for both organizations and their stakeholders.

2.3. One Report in Thailand Through an Integrated Reporting Lens

The evolution of reporting practices among Thai listed companies reflects significant progress in elevating sustainability disclosure standards. Although sustainability reporting in the Asian region historically lagged behind Western countries (Calderon et al., 2023), Thailand has demonstrated continuous development in non-financial information disclosure frameworks. This development began with requiring listed companies to comply with international environmental and social standards to the Stock Exchange of Thailand’s requirements regarding environmental policies and both mandatory and voluntary disclosures (Suttipun & Yordudom, 2022).

This progress culminated in the development of One Report, representing a significant advancement in corporate reporting. This approach combines operational results, organizational structure, and economic growth indicators, addressing three impact dimensions: economic, environmental, and social (Chaiprasi, 2014). One Report aligns with integrated reporting principles that connects strategic planning, governance mechanisms, performance, and future outlook. Thai companies increasingly demonstrate these principles through organizational overview, business model explanation, risk and opportunity assessment, strategic objectives, governance structure, and performance indicators, all supporting sustainable value creation (IIRC, 2013).

While most Thai listed companies use the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) framework for non-financial information reporting, research has identified challenges in integrating environmental and social information, particularly regarding the effectiveness stakeholder communication (Petcharat & Zaman, 2019). Adopting international reporting concepts is therefore crucial for improving reporting quality. Studies show positive relationships between integrated reporting and organizational performance and value, and between good corporate governance on reporting quality (Suttipun & Bomlai, 2019) as well as sustainable value creation (Petcharat, 2020).

Although One Report development in Thailand remains in its initial stages, it shows promising trends, with support from the Federation of Accounting Professions and growing acceptance across organizations (KPMG Thailand, 2024). Additionally, Thailand is preparing to consider implementing new international sustainability reporting standards, IFRS S1 (General Requirements for Disclosure of Sustainability-related Financial Information) and IFRS S2 (Climate-related Disclosures), adapted to the Thai capital market context. Combining GRI reporting principles and these international standards in developing One Report offers significant opportunities for improving corporate information communication, enhancing stakeholder decision-making efficiency, promoting sustainable growth in the Thai capital market, and elevating the competitiveness of Thai listed companies in the international business arena.

2.4. The Relationship Between Integrated Reporting Quality and Corporate Sustainable Growth

The relationship between integrated reporting quality and corporate sustainable growth has gained significant attention, particularly in emerging markets implementing integrated reporting frameworks. Sustainable growth, conceptualized as a company’s ability to expand without compromising financial stability or future viability, has evolved from purely financial metrics to encompass broader sustainability considerations. Schaltegger and Burritt (2005) distinguished between corporate sustainable growth and sustainable development, emphasizing that sustainable growth must consider both economic dimensions (Baumgartner & Ebner, 2010) and environmental and social aspects (Robèrt et al., 2002). The Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) model developed by Higgins (1977) and expanded by Van Horne (1987) has become the predominant measurement approach, utilizing four key accounting ratios: net profit margin, asset turnover, financial structure, and profit retention policy (Fonseka et al., 2012).

Research linking quality reporting to sustainable growth has evolved through several important streams. Foundational studies in traditional financial reporting, such as those by Healy and Palepu (2001), established that high-quality disclosure mitigates information asymmetry and lowers the cost of capital, both of which are critical determinants of an organization’s growth potential. The emergence of the integrated reporting paradigm further strengthened these associations. Empirical evidence from Lee and Yeo (2016) demonstrated that integrated reporting quality exhibits a positive correlation with firm value, particularly among organizations characterized by complex business models. Additional support from Zhou et al. (2017) confirmed that high-quality integrated reporting fosters conditions conducive to efficient resource allocation. Moreover, Barth et al. (2016) identified direct relationships between integrated reporting quality and enhanced firm value. Expanding this body of research toward sustainable growth outcomes, Cortesi and Vena (2019) provided evidence that integrated reporting quality positively influences the value relevance of accounting information, thereby reinforcing an organization’s long-term growth capacity.

Recent research has expanded beyond purely financial factors to incorporate non-financial considerations. Ionita and Dinu (2021) found that investment in intangible assets affects sustainable growth, while Liu et al. (2018) highlighted the role of corporate governance and CSR. In Asian contexts, Anifowose et al. (2020) identified significant positive relationships between integrated capitals reporting and sustainable value creation, while Mans-Kemp and Van der Lugt (2020) found positive associations between integrated reporting quality and both ESG performance and financial outcomes. Despite these advancements, the specific relationship between integrated reporting quality and sustainable growth in Thailand’s One Report context remains underexplored, particularly regarding how enhanced disclosure of business efficiency, risk adaptation, and resource management affects Thai listed companies’ sustainable growth—a gap this research addresses.

2.5. Hypothesis Development

Integrated Reporting (IR) has attracted growing scholarly interest, particularly in studies exploring its relationship with organizational sustainable growth. Triodos Investment Management (2018) identifies IR as a pivotal instrument for understanding sustainable value creation and for capturing the dynamic interplay between financial and non-financial factors. Several theoretical frameworks substantiate the relevance of this relationship. From the perspective of stakeholder theory, high-quality integrated reporting addresses the diverse informational needs of multiple stakeholder groups, thereby fostering stronger stakeholder relationships (Bouten & Hoozée, 2015; Freeman et al., 2018). Concurrently, signaling theory proposes that enhanced reporting quality mitigates information asymmetry, which in turn facilitates higher market valuations and improved access to essential resources. Empirical studies lend support to these theoretical propositions; for example, Sriani and Agustia (2020) found that alignment with the IR Framework significantly reduces information asymmetry, whereas Liu et al. (2018) demonstrated that improvements in reporting quality positively influence value creation through enhanced management efficiency.

Empirical evidence consistently demonstrates connections between reporting quality and organizational outcomes across multiple dimensions. Mans-Kemp and Van der Lugt (2020) identified significant relationships between integrated reporting quality and both ESG performance and financial results, finding that increased IIRC framework compliance reduces analyst forecast errors. This aligns with Churet and Eccles (2014), who found linkages between IR and ESG management effectiveness, an indicator of long-term value creation success, particularly in the healthcare industry. The underlying mechanism appears to operate through transparency and trust: when high-quality reports help stakeholders understand organizational performance transparently, this aids decision-making (Kamotho et al., 2022), building trust, and fostering relationships that lead to sustainable growth.

Further strengthening the empirical foundation, Barth et al. (2016) demonstrated that integrated reporting quality exerts a positive influence on both capital market decisions and organizational performance outcomes. Complementary findings by Moloi and Iredele (2020) revealed that companies exhibiting higher integrated reporting quality attain greater firm value, with significant differences observed across varying levels of reporting quality. These empirical results align with resource-based views of the firm, suggesting that intangible assets such as reporting quality contribute strategically to competitive advantage. In particular, Pirgaip and Rizvić (2023) found that organizations characterized by high-quality integrated reporting secure funding at lower costs, ultimately reinforcing their long-term growth trajectories and financial sustainability.

More recent and comprehensive investigations have expanded our understanding of these relationships. Recent studies by Sun (2024) confirm integrated disclosure’s role in organizational sustainable development, while Chai et al. (2023) expanded understanding by finding that comprehensive disclosure positively relates to sustainable growth, identifying media attention as a significant moderating variable. This indicates that both internal reporting processes and external scrutiny contribute to the reporting-growth relationship. Moreover, Asadi et al. (2024) found that whether mandatory or voluntary, integrated reporting affects value creation through increased transparency and information comprehensiveness. This extensive body of consistent and continuous empirical evidence leads to the development of the main hypothesis:

H1: 

The One Report quality based on the Integrated Reporting Perspective has a positive relationship with the sustainable growth of Thai listed companies.

To provide a more thorough understanding of how specific aspects of reporting affect sustainable growth, we investigate the component-level relationships within the IR Framework. When examining the components of the IR Framework, each element plays a crucial role in sustainable growth. Regarding Capital, Anifowose et al. (2020) demonstrated that overall capital disclosure has significant positive effects on companies’ sustainable growth, with their findings indicating that particularly human and natural capital indirectly influence financial costs, while all six types of capital influence sustainable growth. This multidimensional impact suggests that comprehensive capital disclosure serves as both a direct and indirect driver of sustainable outcomes. This aligns with Liu et al. (2018), who found that comprehensive capital reporting reflects organizational value and potential, and Vitolla et al. (2020), who showed that efficient capital management affects competitiveness and growth.

Additional research reinforces these relationships across various contexts. Cortesi and Vena (2019) identified relationships between capital disclosure and firm value. Melloni (2015) studied intellectual capital disclosure in integrated reporting and found it affects stakeholder perceptions. The longitudinal development of this evidence is particularly compelling: this finding was supported by Setia et al. (2015), who studied integrated reporting in South Africa and found preliminary evidence of relationships between capital reporting and performance. Subsequently, Arguelles et al. (2015) expanded the scope and found that leadership in capital information presentation affects not only performance but also market value. Together, these studies demonstrate a robust and consistent pattern across different markets and time periods. This consistency in findings leads to the first sub-hypothesis:

H2: 

The capital component of the IR Framework is positively related to sustainable growth rate.

Regarding Guiding Principles, empirical studies have demonstrated clear connections to organizational outcomes. Buitendag et al. (2017), in identifying characteristics of reporting excellence, found that strict adherence to guiding principles is a crucial factor. Delving deeper into specific mechanisms, Melloni et al. (2017) investigated key components of guiding principles, particularly conciseness, completeness, and balance, finding these elements affect not only reporting quality but also stakeholder perception and decision-making. This suggests that guiding principles operate through cognitive processing pathways, influencing how information is received and utilized by stakeholders.

Research has also identified specific principle-level impacts. Fasan and Mio (2017) extended this research by focusing on materiality, finding that material disclosure not only improves reporting quality but also promotes stakeholder engagement. This aligns with Gerwanski et al. (2019), who confirmed the importance of material disclosure in creating reporting value. Organizational factors also influence these relationships, as Cooray et al. (2020) expanded the scope by linking corporate governance with reporting quality, finding that good governance supports effective implementation of guiding principles. This corresponds with Vitolla et al. (2020), who showed that strict adherence to guiding principles helps reduce the cost of equity capital.

The long-term strategic benefits have also been documented. Recently, Luhova and Pisochenko (2021) concluded that implementing sustainability strategies, including adherence to integrated reporting guiding principles, benefits organizations in the long term by enhancing management transparency and accountability. Their findings particularly highlight the temporal dimension of these relationships, suggesting that principles-based reporting delivers increasingly significant benefits over time as stakeholders develop familiarity with the reporting approach. This continuous empirical evidence demonstrating the importance of guiding principles for sustainable organizational development leads to the third hypothesis:

H3: 

The guiding principles component of the IR Framework is positively related to sustainable growth rate.

Findings of studies concerning Content Elements demonstrate strong connections between integrated reporting methods and sustainable development achievements. Moloi and Iredele (2020) found that company value increases as firms enhance their integrated reporting content quality while observing significant differences in company performance levels based on reporting accuracy. Valuation effects maintain their consistency when applied to multiple market environments. The research findings from Lee and Yeo (2016) together with Barth et al. (2016) provide additional proof that quality integrated reporting content correlates with firm value and wider economic outcomes. The study by Lee and Yeo (2016) confirmed that high-quality integrated reporting content significantly impacts firm value alongside broader economic effects. Zhou et al. (2017) supported earlier studies by showing that good quality content influences how the capital market works by affecting investor confidence and how resources are allocated.

The quality dimension of reporting content has attracted particular scholarly attention in recent years. In relation to content quality, Pistoni et al. (2018) demonstrated that content completeness exerts a direct influence on overall reporting quality. Similarly, Cosmulese et al. (2019) found that reporting content aligning with stakeholder expectations significantly enhances reporting quality and contributes to sustainable growth trajectories. The information economics perspective further supports these findings; Sriani and Agustia (2020) provided evidence that high-quality reporting content plays a crucial role in reducing information asymmetry, which constitutes a fundamental prerequisite for achieving sustainable growth.

Research has also identified element-specific effects. Melloni et al. (2016) expanded perspectives by analyzing business model disclosure tone, finding it affects stakeholder perception and decision-making. The cumulative weight of this empirical evidence shows that quality content elements not only help reduce information asymmetry and capital costs but also promote efficient stakeholder decision-making, creating multiple pathways through which content elements contribute to organizational sustainable growth. Building on these theoretical foundations and empirical findings, this leads to the fourth hypothesis:

H4: 

The content elements component of the IR Framework is positively related to sustainable growth rate.

These hypotheses are grounded in both theoretical frameworks and empirical evidence, with stakeholder theory explaining the relational aspects and signaling theory addressing information asymmetry reduction. These hypotheses are supported by diverse and comprehensive research, demonstrating relationships between various integrated reporting components and sustainable growth through mechanisms of reducing information asymmetry, improving management efficiency, and creating long-term value. By examining both overall reporting quality and specific component relationships, this study will contribute to understanding how different aspects of integrated reporting influence sustainable growth in emerging markets. The study results will help understand integrated reporting’s role in the Thai capital market context.

3. Methodology

3.1. Sample Selection and Data Collection

To test the study’s hypotheses, companies listed on the Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET) were selected as the target population, with particular emphasis on SET50 index constituents. This group is of special interest as they were the first to be mandated to comply with the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) requirements for Form 56-1 One Report in 2022 (SEC Thailand, 2021). In line with Barth et al. (2016) and Zhou et al. (2017), the study focuses on large-cap companies with high market capitalization, as these firms typically respond more effectively and promptly to regulatory and reporting changes due to their available resources.

Table 1. Sample Selection Process.

Selection Criteria	Number of Companies	Number of Annual Reports
SET50 Index constituents (2019–2022)	63	245
Less: Companies with non-December 31st fiscal year-end	(2)	(8)
Less: Companies newly listed after 2019	(1)	(2)
Less: Companies delisted during 2019–2022	(1)	(3)
Final sample	59	232

details the sample selection process. From the SET50 index composition during 2019–2022, which undergoes semi-annual revision based on market capitalization criteria, 63 distinct companies were identified. After excluding companies with non-December 31st fiscal year-ends (2), those newly listed during the study period (1), and those delisted due to mergers and acquisitions (1), the final sample comprised 59 distinct companies across seven industries, representing Thailand’s leading enterprises across diverse operational characteristics.

The study analyzed 232 annual reports from 2019 to 2022, encompassing periods both prior to and following the implementation of Form 56-1 One Report. Data collection procedures involved the systematic examination of three primary sources: corporate websites, the official website of the Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET), and the SETSMART database. This multi-source approach was employed to ensure the comprehensiveness and reliability of the information gathered for subsequent analysis.

3.2. Variables and Measurement

This study examined the relationship between integrated reporting quality and sustainable growth through 24 independent variables, comprising the integrated reporting framework’s three main components and their 21 sub-components (including six capital principles, seven guiding principles, and eight content elements) and three control variables (company size, industry type, and year), with sustainable growth rate (SGR) as the dependent variable.

Table 2. Variables’ measurement.

Variables	Notation	Measurement
Sustainable growth rate	SGR	SGR = Net Profit Ratio × Asset Turnover Ratio × Equity Multiplier × Retention Rate
Quality of IR	IRQ	Sum of scores compliant with IR Framework disclosure requirements, comprising capital (CA), guiding principles (GP), and content elements (CE).
Capital:	CA	Sum of capital scores (CA1–CA6) compliant with IR Framework.
- Financial capital - Manufactured capital - Intellectual capital - Human capital - Social & relationship capital - Natural capital	CA1 CA2 CA3 CA4 CA5 CA6	Individual capital disclosure scores compliant with IR Framework.
Guiding principle:	GP	Sum of guiding principle scores (GP1–GP7) compliant with IR Framework.
- Strategic focus& future orientation - Connectivity of information - Stakeholder relationship - Materiality - Conciseness - Reliability and completeness - Consistency & comparability	GP1 GP2 GP3 GP4 GP5 GP6 GP7	Individual guiding principle scores compliant with IR Framework
Content element:	CE	Sum of content element scores (CE1–CE8) compliant with IR Framework
- Organizational overview - Governance - Business model - Risk and opportunities - Strategy & resource allocation - Performance - Outlook - Basis of preparation and presentation	CE1 CE2 CE3 CE4 CE5 CE6 CE7 CE8	Individual content element scores compliant with IR Framework
Company size	SIZE	The natural logarithm of total asset
Industry	INDUS	Industry fixed effect
Year	YEAR	Year fixed effect

summarizes all variable measurements.

3.2.1. Independent Variable: Integrated Reporting Quality (IRQ)

The quality of One Report disclosures was assessed through an integrated reporting perspective utilizing a comprehensive content analysis methodology. An Integrated Reporting Quality Index (IRQI) was developed based on established research frameworks (Agustia et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2018; Oktorina et al., 2022; Pistoni et al., 2018; Vitolla et al., 2020) to systematically evaluate corporate reporting practices. The IRQI framework consisted of 69 disclosure items organized under three principal components of the Integrated Reporting Framework: capitals (CA), guiding principles (GP), and content elements (CE). These components were further subdivided into 21 sub-components, comprising six capital categories (CA1–CA6), seven guiding principles (GP1–GP7), and eight content elements (CE1–CE8). Each disclosure item was assessed using evaluation criteria developed through a rigorous mapping process that aligned international reporting standards with the specific requirements outlined in the Stock Exchange of Thailand’s Form 56-1 One Report. Such alignment ensures a comprehensive and contextually relevant assessment of both global best practices and local regulatory compliance.

The scoring methodology employs an unweighted approach, widely recognized in disclosure studies (Cooke, 1989). This method is particularly appropriate when research does not focus on specific user groups’ information needs (Cooke, 1989). Building upon the work of Pistoni et al. (2018) and Zhou et al. (2017), this study implements a three-level scoring system: 0 (component not mentioned), 1 (limited explanation), and 2 (comprehensive explanation with supporting evidence). This approach yields a maximum possible score of 44, 34, and 60 points for capitals, guiding principles, and content elements, respectively (as summarized in

Table 3. Overview of the scoring model.

Main Categories	Disclosure Topics	Disclosure Items	Type and Range	Maximum Score
Capitals	6	22	Scale (0–2)	44
Guiding principles	7	30	Scale (0–2)	60
Content elements	8	17	Scale (0–2)	34
Total	21	69		138

), enabling greater precision in analyzing reporting quality variations.

To ensure the validity and reliability of the measurement process, the study adopted a rigorous validation protocol. Consistent with the approach proposed by Lee and Yeo (2016), a comprehensive coding framework was developed and subsequently validated by experts in integrated reporting. The framework underwent pre-testing using annual reports from seven companies representing a diverse range of industries, thereby confirming its applicability across different organizational contexts. In addition, each annual report was independently evaluated by two researchers, an approach widely recognized for its effectiveness in minimizing coder bias and enhancing the reliability of content analysis outcomes (Melloni et al., 2017).

3.2.2. Dependent Variable

The Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) served as the dependent variable, measuring a company’s optimal growth potential using internal resources without external financing. Following seminal works by Higgins (1977) and Van Horne (1987), and contemporary applications (Ionita & Dinu, 2021; Liu et al., 2018; Oprean-Stan et al., 2020), SGR is calculated as:

SGR = Net Profit Ratio × Asset Turnover Ratio × Equity Multiplier × Retention Rate

This formula incorporated four key financial metrics reflecting different dimensions of corporate financial sustainability:

• Net Profit Ratio (net income/sales): Measures profitability efficiency
• Asset Turnover (sales/total assets): Indicates resource utilization efficiency
• Equity Multiplier (total assets/book equity): Reflects financial leverage
• Retention Rate (retained earnings/net income): Shows reinvestment capacity

This comprehensive measurement captures the multifaceted nature of sustainable growth, incorporating profitability, operational efficiency, capital structure, and reinvestment policy.

3.2.3. Control Variable

The study incorporated three control variables that have been empirically demonstrated to influence both integrated reporting quality and sustainable growth outcomes. Company Size (SIZE) was measured by the natural logarithm of total assets, based on the premise that larger firms typically produce more comprehensive disclosures due to heightened public scrutiny and greater resource availability (Frías-Aceituno et al., 2013; Suttipun et al., 2023; Vitolla et al., 2020). Industry Type (INDUS) was classified according to the Stock Exchange of Thailand’s seven-sector classification system, comprising Agro and Food Industry, Financials, Property and Construction, Technology, Services, Industrials, and Resources. Such classification facilitates appropriate comparisons among firms operating within similar industrial contexts (Gerwanski et al., 2019; Suttipun, 2017). Reporting Year (YEAR) was included to control for potential temporal effects, particularly given the regulatory transition toward the One Report format during the study period, as reporting practices tend to evolve in response to new disclosure requirements (Lakkanawanit et al., 2022).

3.3. Data Analysis

The data analysis adopted a comprehensive approach to evaluate the corporate reporting quality of Thai-listed companies over the period from 2019 to 2022. The analytical process commenced with descriptive statistical analysis to investigate reporting patterns and assess quality levels across the sampled companies. Continuous variables were winsorized at the 1st and 99th percentiles to mitigate the influence of potential outliers, adhering to established practices in accounting research (Barth et al., 2016; Vitolla et al., 2020). Subsequently, multiple regression analysis was employed to examine the impact of reporting quality on sustainable growth outcomes. Four regression models were developed to guide the analysis: Model A assessed the overall effect of the three principal components of the Integrated Reporting Framework, whereas Models B through D provided a more granular examination of the relationships between sustainable growth and the detailed sub-components within each principal component, as illustrated by the following equations.

SGRit = β₀ + β₁CAit + β2GPit + β3CEit + β4SIZEit + β5INDUSi + β4YEARt + εit	(Model A)
SGRit = β0 + β1C1it + β2C2it + β3C3it + β4C4it + β5C5it + β6C6it + β7SIZEit + β8INDUSi + β9YEARt + εit	(Model B)
SGRit = β0 + β1GP1it + β2GP2it + β3GP3it + β4GP4it + β5GP5it + β6GP6it + β7GP7it + β8SIZEit + β9INDUSi + β10YEARt + εit	(Model C)
SGRit = β0 + β1CE1it + β2CE2it + β3CE3it + β4CE4it + β5CE5it + β6CE6it + β7CE7it + β8CE8it + β9SIZEit + β10INDUSi + β11YEARt + εit	(Model D)

where SGRit is the sustainable growth rate; CAit, GPit, and CEit represent scores for capitals, guiding principles, and content elements respectively; C1it–C6it represent the six capital components; GP1it–GP7it represent the seven guiding principles; CE1it–CE8it represent the eight content elements; SIZEit is firm size; INDUSi is industry type; YEARt controls for time effects; and εit is the error term.

4. Results

4.1. One Report Quality Through an Integrated Reporting Lens

The analysis of annual report disclosure quality for 59 SET50-listed companies during the period from 2019 to 2022 reveals a significant improvement in reporting quality.

Table 4. One Report quality based on IR Framework components.

Integrated Reporting Framework	Before One Report Implementation						After One Report Implementation
	2019			2020			2021			2022
	Mean	S.D.	%	Mean	S.D.	%	Mean	S.D.	%	Mean	S.D.	%
C: Capitals	25.26	6.09	57.42%	29.41	6.95	66.85%	33.27	4.70	75.62%	33.47	4.89	76.06%
C1: Financial capital	9.18	1.05	91.75%	9.55	0.65	95.52%	9.59	0.70	95.93%	9.62	0.72	96.21%
C2: Manufactured capital	3.28	0.56	82.02%	3.66	0.48	91.38%	3.92	0.28	97.88%	3.97	0.18	99.14%
C3: Intellectual capital	2.68	1.58	44.74%	3.19	1.66	53.16%	3.88	1.62	64.69%	3.88	1.51	64.66%
C4: Human capital	4.14	1.94	51.75%	4.84	1.83	60.56%	5.42	1.92	67.80%	5.74	1.74	71.77%
C5: Social and relationship capital	3.40	2.03	42.54%	4.72	2.20	59.05%	5.98	1.36	74.79%	5.86	1.74	73.28%
C6: Natural capital	2.58	2.08	32.24%	3.45	2.25	43.10%	4.47	1.45	55.93%	4.40	1.67	54.96%
GP: Guiding Principles	19.84	4.41	58.36%	23.50	5.70	69.12%	28.07	3.26	82.55%	28.43	3.30	83.62%
GP1: Strategic focus and future orientation	4.40	1.08	73.39%	4.83	1.14	80.46%	5.42	0.91	90.40%	5.53	0.84	92.24%
GP2: Connectivity of information	4.26	1.14	71.05%	4.93	1.17	82.18%	5.58	0.75	92.94%	5.62	0.72	93.68%
GP3: Stakeholder relationship	0.86	1.33	21.49%	1.91	1.75	47.84%	3.29	1.20	82.20%	3.26	1.31	81.47%
GP4: Materiality	1.16	1.41	28.95%	1.76	1.72	44.07%	2.39	1.35	59.75%	2.45	1.37	61.21%
GP5: Conciseness	2.23	0.42	55.70%	2.57	0.53	64.22%	2.93	0.41	73.31%	2.97	0.32	74.14%
GP6: Reliability and completeness	4.04	0.84	67.25%	4.53	0.88	75.57%	5.02	0.57	83.62%	5.03	0.56	83.91%
GP7: Consistency and comparability	2.89	0.59	72.37%	3.09	0.54	77.16%	3.44	0.53	86.02%	3.57	0.53	89.22%
CE: Content Elements	38.95	7.71	64.91%	44.69	8.74	74.48%	51.37	4.80	85.62%	52.34	5.25	87.24%
CE1: Organizational overview and external environment	11.88	1.73	84.84%	12.62	1.44	90.15%	13.07	0.94	93.34%	13.12	0.92	93.72%
CE2: Governance	6.00	1.35	75.00%	6.67	1.25	83.41%	7.34	0.90	91.74%	7.48	0.68	93.53%
CE3: Business model	3.79	1.01	63.16%	4.59	1.26	76.44%	5.54	0.68	92.37%	5.52	0.73	91.95%
CE4: Risk and opportunities	3.40	1.16	56.73%	3.91	1.14	65.23%	4.27	1.16	71.19%	4.38	1.28	72.99%
CE5: Strategy and resource allocation	3.67	1.07	61.11%	4.29	1.35	71.55%	5.32	0.88	88.70%	5.57	0.75	92.82%
CE6: Performance	5.61	1.79	56.14%	6.72	2.16	67.24%	8.58	1.40	85.76%	8.78	1.52	87.76%
CE7: Outlook	3.12	1.00	78.07%	3.48	0.75	87.07%	3.66	0.63	91.53%	3.67	0.66	91.81%
CE8: Basis of preparation and presentation	1.47	1.85	24.56%	2.40	2.17	39.94%	3.59	1.99	59.89%	3.83	2.10	63.79%
Total	84.23	16.18	61.03%	97.60	19.68	70.73%	112.71	10.93	81.68%	114.24	11.98	82.78%

presents the mean scores and standard deviations (SD) for each principal component and sub-component of the Integrated Reporting Framework across the study period. The reported means reflect average scores across all sampled companies based on a 0–2 scale scoring system. The accompanying percentage columns represent these means as proportions of the maximum possible scores, specifically 44 points for capitals, 60 points for guiding principles, and 34 points for Content Elements. An overall assessment, based on a maximum total score of 138 points, indicates that the aggregated reporting quality score increased substantially from 61.03% in 2019 to 82.78% in 2022. This notable improvement suggests that the implementation of the One Report policy has been effective in enhancing the reporting standards of Thai-listed companies.

Within the Capitals component, Financial Capital consistently maintained the highest disclosure levels, increasing from 91.73% to 96.21% over the study period. Social and Relationship Capital exhibited the most substantial improvement, rising from 42.54% to 73.28%, reflecting a growing alignment with global trends emphasizing stakeholder engagement and broader societal accountability. Regarding Guiding Principles, Connectivity of Information and Strategic Focus achieved particularly high disclosure levels by 2022, reaching 93.68% and 92.24% respectively. Stakeholder Relationship disclosure demonstrated the most notable progress within this category, increasing dramatically from 21.49% to 81.47%, indicative of enhanced corporate responsiveness to the needs and expectations of diverse stakeholder groups. In terms of Content Elements, Organizational Overview and Governance disclosures attained high levels of completeness, reaching 93.72% and 93.53% respectively. Moreover, Business Model disclosure improved markedly from 63.16% to 91.95%, suggesting significant advancements in communicating organizational value creation mechanisms to stakeholders.

The declining standard deviations across most components from 2019 to 2022 indicate increased reporting consistency among companies, suggesting convergence in reporting practices as firms adapted to the One Report requirements. The most substantial improvement occurred after One Report implementation, with overall scores rising from 70.73% in 2020 to 81.68% in 2021. This confirms the policy’s effectiveness in elevating reporting quality to international standards, particularly in non-financial information, social aspects, and stakeholder relationships.

4.2. Analysis of the Relationship Between Corporate Report Quality Through an Integrated Perspective and Sustainable Growth

Multiple regression analysis was employed to examine relationships between reporting quality and sustainable growth at both main component and sub-component levels.

Table 5. Results of regression models.

Variables	Model A		Model B		Model C		Model D
	B	t	B	t (Sig.)	B	t (Sig.)	B	t (Sig.)
Constant	0.394	3.083 **	0.462	2.709 **	0.227	1.588	0.351	2.333 *
CA	−0.002	−0.829
GP	0.001	0.496
CE	0.000	−0.256
CA1			−0.007	−0.731
CA2			0.003	0.170
CA3			−0.004	−0.642
CA4			−0.005	−1.139
CA5			−0.002	−0.414
CA6			0.005	0.760
GP1					−0.040	−4.292 **
GP2					0.037	3.705 **
GP3					0.010	1.688
GP4					−0.011	−1.954
GP5					0.036	2.316 *
GP6					−0.003	−0.280
GP7					−0.006	−0.449
CE1							−0.010	−1.361
CE2							0.000	−0.029
CE3							0.022	2.100 *
CE4							−0.005	−0.551
CE5							0.004	0.359
CE6							−0.002	−0.247
CE7							−0.004	−0.294
CE8							−0.004	−0.857
SIZE	Yes		Yes		Yes		Yes
INDUS	Yes		Yes		Yes		Yes
YEAR	Yes		Yes		Yes		No
R Square	0.093		0.102		0.208		0.103
Adj R Square	0.039		0.035		0.145		0.041
Observations	232		232		232		232

** is significant at 0.01 level, and * is significant at 0.05 level.

presents four regression models: Model A examines relationships between the three main IR Framework components and sustainable growth, while Models B-D analyze sub-components of Capitals, Guiding Principles, and Content Elements, respectively.

At the main component level (Model A), no statistically significant relationships were found between aggregated IR Framework components and sustainable growth. Coeffi-cients for Capitals (CA: β = −0.002, t = −0.829), Guiding Principles (GP: β = 0.001, t = 0.496), and Content Elements (CE: β = 0.000, t = −0.256) were all non-significant. This finding aligns with research by Liu et al. (2018) and Giovannoni and Maraghini (2013), suggesting that integrated reporting benefits typically manifest at granular rather than aggregate levels, particularly in emerging markets newly adopting such frameworks. These results differ from the hypothesized positive relationships at the component level (H2–H4), which were based on studies primarily conducted in more developed markets. Oktorina et al. (2022) note that emerging markets often experience different adoption patterns due to institutional factors, which may explain these divergent findings.

Sub-component analyses revealed significant relationships, with the Guiding Principles model (Model C) demonstrating the highest explanatory power (R-squared = 0.208). Within this model, Information Connectivity (GP2: β = 0.037, t = 3.705) and Conciseness (GP5: β = 0.036, t = 2.316) exhibited positive relationships with sustainable growth, while Strategic Focus and Future Orientation (GP1: β = −0.040, t = −4.292) showed a significant negative relationship.

The positive relationship between Information Connectivity and sustainable growth supports stakeholder theory, indicating that effectively connecting financial and non-financial information enables more accurate firm value assessment and reduces information processing costs for stakeholders (Gerwanski et al., 2019). Similarly, the positive relationship between Conciseness and sustainable growth supports signaling theory—concise reporting signals management efficiency and transparency, reducing information asymmetry (Melloni et al., 2017).

The negative relationship between Strategic Focus and sustainable growth, while seemingly counterintuitive, has several theoretical explanations. Companies operating in uncertain environments—as during this study period, which included the COVID-19 pandemic—may strategically limit forward-looking disclosures to protect competitive advantages (Pirgaip & Rizvić, 2023). Furthermore, excessive strategic disclosure without operational implementation can foster stakeholder skepticism (Vitolla et al., 2019), and strategic forward-looking disclosures can sometimes increase information asymmetry when stakeholders perceive them as optimistic signaling rather than grounded planning (Sriani & Agustia, 2020). This is particularly relevant in emerging Asian markets where regulatory enforcement may be perceived as less stringent. From a signaling perspective, companies with strong strategic positioning may not extensively document their strategic focus, as market performance already signals their strategic competence.

In Model D, only Business Model disclosure (CE3: β = 0.022, t = 2.100) showed a significant positive relationship with sustainable growth, supporting research by Melloni et al. (2016) that clear business model presentation enhances information credibility and stakeholder assessment of organizational potential. The Capitals model (Model B) revealed no significant relationships, consistent with emerging market contexts where non-financial capital measurement and reporting remain developing practices (Liu et al., 2018). As Anifowose et al. (2020) observe, capital reporting benefits typically materialize over longer timeframes, particularly when measurement methodologies are still evolving, as is often the case in emerging markets.

These findings collectively suggest that information presentation quality affects stakeholder decision-making more than information quantity (Rivera-Arrubla et al., 2017), reinforcing that specific reporting elements enhancing information accessibility and credibility significantly influence sustainable growth, even when aggregate measures show no significant relationships.

For robustness, Return on Equity (ROE) was employed as an alternative dependent variable, given its prevalent use in reporting quality-performance relationship studies (Mans-Kemp & Van der Lugt, 2020; Vitolla et al., 2020) and its status as a key SGR component (Barth et al., 2016). Results strongly confirmed the relationships identified in the main analysis, as shown in

Table 6. Robustness of the test results.

Variables	Model A		Model B		Model C		Model D
	B	t	B	t (Sig.)	B	t (Sig.)	B	t (Sig.)
Constant	0.841	4.881 **	0.838	3.634 **	0.577	2.988 **	0.990	4.876 **
CA	−0.004	−1.498
GP	0.000	−0.026
CE	0.002	0.780
CA1			−0.006	−0.462
CA2			0.012	0.464
CA3			−0.005	−0.640
CA4			−0.007	−1.166
CA5			0.003	0.417
CA6			−0.003	−0.341
GP1					−0.061	−4.810 **
GP2					0.042	3.144 **
GP3					0.016	1.964 *
GP4					−0.011	−1.513
GP5					0.038	1.804
GP6					−0.008	−0.461
GP7					0.013	0.695
CE1							−0.017	−1.772
CE2							−0.008	−0.774
CE3							0.029	2.031 *
CE4							0.007	0.596
CE5							0.010	0.723
CE6							−0.006	−0.649
CE7							0.005	0.264
CE8							−0.005	−0.813
SIZE	Yes		Yes		Yes		Yes
INDUS	Yes		Yes		Yes		Yes
YEAR	Yes		Yes		Yes		Yes
R Square	0.184		0.187		0.283		0.205
Adj R Square	0.136		0.126		0.226		0.138
Observations	232		232		232		232

** is significant at 0.01 level, and * is significant at 0.05 level.

. The Guiding Principles model maintained the highest explanatory power (R-squared = 0.283) with similar relationship patterns: Information Connectivity (GP2: β = 0.042) and Conciseness (GP5: β = 0.038) showed positive relationships, while Strategic Focus (GP1: β = −0.061) maintained a significant negative relationship. Business Model (CE3: β = 0.029) also remained significant, supporting the reliability of these findings and their theoretical consistency.

In summary, while aggregate reporting quality measures do not directly correlate with sustainable growth, specific reporting characteristics—particularly information connectivity, conciseness, and business model clarity—significantly influence sustainable growth in Thai listed companies. The negative relationship between strategic focus and sustainable growth reflects complex strategic communication dynamics in uncertain eco-nomic environments. These findings suggest that targeted improvements in specific re-porting elements may yield greater benefits than general increases in disclosure volume.

5. Discussion

The development of reporting quality among Thai-listed companies during the period from 2019 to 2022 reflects two significant structural shifts. The first concerns the corporate sector’s responsiveness to regulatory changes, as evidenced by the substantial increase in total disclosure scores from 61.03% to 82.78%, particularly following the implementation of the One Report guidelines. Particularly, the average score rose from 70.73% to 81.68% in the period following the policy’s enforcement. Such improvements are consistent with the findings of Lee and Yeo (2016), who demonstrated that the introduction of mandatory reporting requirements in emerging markets is positively associated with enhanced organizational value and improved performance outcomes. In addition, response to stakeholder needs revealed significant improvements in stakeholder-related components: Social and Relationship Capital (42.54% to 73.28%) and Stakeholder Relationships (21.49% to 81.47%). This corresponds with Mans-Kemp and Van der Lugt (2020), who found that responding to diverse stakeholder needs enhances organizational performance in emerging markets. These improvements are particularly significant as they occurred during the COVID-19 crisis, which Ng et al. (2020) identified as a catalyst for Asian capital market listed companies to develop ESG reporting and stakeholder communication. Vitolla et al. (2019) found that stakeholder pressure during crises elevates reporting quality. Both policy changes and business environment transformations drive quality improvements among Thai listed companies.

The analysis of the relationship between reporting quality and sustainable growth identified reporting as a signaling mechanism for communicating organizational value creation (IIRC, 2013). While the initial findings revealed no significant relationships at the main component level (R-squared = 0.102), this reflects common challenges in emerging markets newly implementing combined financial and non-financial reporting. Liu et al. (2018) noted that emerging markets often struggle with measuring non-financial capital, with Giovannoni and Maraghini (2013) suggesting that meaningful benefits typically require 3–5 years to materialize—a timeline further complicated by COVID-19 challenges. This finding aligns with Cortesi and Vena (2019), who documented that integrated reporting implementation typically produces incremental rather than immediate value creation effects in emerging markets.

However, deeper examination at the sub-component level revealed several important relationships under Stakeholder Theory and Signaling Theory frameworks. Information presentation quality emerged as more significant than quantity, with Information connectivity (β = 0.037) and conciseness (β = 0.036) showing positive relationships with sustainable growth. This aligns with Pistoni et al. (2018), who emphasized that effective reporting depends more on communication quality than volume, while Gerwanski et al. (2019) found these qualities reduce information processing costs for stakeholders, leading to more efficient decision-making. These results support Oprean-Stan et al. (2020), who demonstrated that accessibility and comprehensibility of sustainability information significantly influence sustainable growth by facilitating more efficient capital allocation decisions.

Business model disclosure (β = 0.022) also positively affects sustainable growth, highlighting the importance of clearly communicating value creation processes. Melloni et al. (2016) demonstrated that balanced business model presentation enhances information credibility and stakeholders’ assessment of organizational potential, supporting findings by Barth et al. (2016) and Sriani and Agustia (2020) that quality business model explanations reduce information asymmetry and positively influence long-term performance. This relationship is further supported by Ionita and Dinu (2021), who found that clear articulation of value creation processes enhances both market valuation and sustainable growth potential in emerging markets.

Interestingly, Strategic Focus and Future Orientation (β = −0.040) showed a negative relationship with sustainable growth, reflecting the complexities of signaling in uncertain markets. Pirgaip and Rizvić (2023) suggest this may represent cautious strategic disclosure as a mechanism to protect competitive advantage during economic uncertainty. This aligns with findings from Qian et al. (2023), who identified that during high-uncertainty periods, excessive forward-looking disclosure can increase skepticism among investors in Asian markets, potentially limiting sustainable growth prospects. Similarly, Chai et al. (2023) found that the relationship between disclosure quality and sustainable growth is significantly moderated by external scrutiny factors, suggesting complex interaction effects beyond direct disclosure-growth relationships.

All these findings demonstrate both the progress and challenges in developing effective corporate reporting in emerging markets, particularly during transition periods and crises. The evidence supports B20’s assertion that comprehensive reporting promotes long-term investment-friendly practices (Pistoni et al., 2018). For future development, creating a comprehensive reporting ecosystem that encompasses standards, practices, and organizational readiness will be crucial for elevating reporting quality and supporting sustainable growth in emerging markets (Oktorina et al., 2022).

6. Conclusions

The research demonstrates substantial progress in corporate reporting practices within the Thai capital markets, reflecting qualitative shifts in corporate communications that signal an emerging market’s advancement toward international standards. Beyond documenting improvements in disclosure scores, the findings offer deeper insight into the complex relationship between reporting quality and sustainable growth. The results challenge the traditional assumption that an increase in the quantity of disclosures inherently enhances reporting outcomes, emphasizing instead that the method of information presentation holds greater significance. Information connectivity, conciseness, and business model disclosure were identified as positively associated with sustainable growth, whereas strategic focus exhibited a negative relationship. This counterintuitive negative association suggests the presence of complex strategic tensions within firms operating in volatile environments, where the pursuit of transparency must be carefully balanced against the imperative to protect competitive advantages. Such findings illuminate the sophisticated decision-making dynamics that underline corporate disclosure strategies, extending the conversation beyond mere regulatory compliance toward a more sophisticated understanding of strategic communication.

From a theoretical perspective, this research significantly advances understanding of how stakeholder and signaling theories operate in emerging market contexts. While prior research has established these theories primarily in developed markets, this study demonstrates how the mechanisms of information transmission and stakeholder engagement function differently under the institutional and economic conditions of emerging economies. By analyzing how different reporting components affect growth, the research reveals that stakeholder theory operates through specific communicative mechanisms—particularly information connectivity and business model clarity—that reduce cognitive barriers to information processing rather than through total information volume. Similarly, signaling theory manifests not through comprehensive disclosure but through strategic information selection that balances transparency with competitive considerations. These insights extend existing theoretical frameworks by identifying the contextual boundary conditions under which they operate in emerging market environments.

This study also contributes to the broader discourse on the efficacy of regulatory interventions in capital markets. The improvements following One Report implementation indicate that well-designed regulatory frameworks can elevate corporate disclosure practices, particularly in emerging markets where market forces alone may be insufficient. The dramatic improvements in specific reporting components following regulatory changes provide compelling evidence of regulation’s catalytic role in corporate governance evolution, with implications for policy development in other emerging economies seeking to strengthen their capital markets.

For practitioners, the findings offer actionable strategic guidance beyond generic recommendations for “better reporting”. Corporate managers should prioritize presentation methods over disclosure volume. Specifically, managers should focus on three high-impact areas: (1) strengthening information connectivity by creating clear linkages between financial and non-financial information; (2) enhancing conciseness through focused, material disclosures that reduce information overload; and (3) developing clear business model explanations that explicitly articulate value creation mechanisms. The positive correlations identified in this study provide empirical validation that these targeted improvements yield measurable benefits for sustainable growth, offering a focused roadmap for reporting strategy optimization. Regulators in emerging markets can use our results as empirical support for mandatory reporting requirements, with Thailand’s successful One Report implementation serving as a model that combines international best practices with local market contexts. Particularly noteworthy is how the regulatory framework catalyzed improvements in precisely those reporting components most strongly linked to sustainable growth, suggesting that well-designed regulations can effectively target economically significant disclosure elements. For investors and stakeholders, this study identifies reporting elements most strongly associated with sustainable growth, enabling more informed investment decisions.

Despite these contributions, this research has several limitations that suggest valuable avenues for future inquiry. The focus on SET50 companies limits generalizability to smaller firms with different resources and capabilities. This selection bias toward larger firms may obscure different dynamics present in small and medium enterprises, which often face more severe resource constraints in implementing comprehensive reporting practices. The four-year observation period, while capturing the critical transition to One Report, may not fully reveal long-term impacts. This temporal limitation restricts understanding of how the reporting-growth relationship evolves through complete economic cycles and over longer implementation horizons. The analysis focuses only on direct relationships between reporting quality and sustainable growth, without considering mediating and moderating factors. This simplification of causal pathways may mask important intervening mechanisms through which reporting quality influences growth outcomes.

These limitations point toward several promising research directions. Future research should expand the sample to include diverse company sizes, conduct longitudinal studies over longer periods, explore mediating factors such as corporate governance quality and ownership structure, perform comparative studies across different emerging markets, and include qualitative research on report preparers’ decision-making processes. Particularly valuable would be mixed-methods studies that combine quantitative analysis of reporting-growth relationships with qualitative exploration of how managers interpret and implement reporting guidelines, potentially revealing the cognitive and organizational processes that translate reporting standards into effective disclosure practices.

In conclusion, this study makes significant theoretical and practical contributions by clarifying the specific mechanisms through which reporting quality influences sustainable growth in emerging markets. By demonstrating that effective communication methods—not merely increased disclosure volume—drive sustainable growth outcomes, the research provides both theoretical nuance and practical guidance for navigating the evolving landscape of integrated reporting. As emerging economies continue to develop their capital markets and reporting frameworks, these insights offer valuable direction for creating reporting systems that meaningfully support sustainable economic development rather than imposing burdensome compliance requirements with limited economic benefit.