Key Performance Indicators Disclosures Through Internet: towards an integrated scoreboard

Ilídio Tomás Lopes


Purpose – Information disclosure is driven by multiple determinants, most of them supported by traditional theories, such as agency theory, contingency theory, and legitemacy theory. This research aims to identify a set of Key Performance Indicators (KPI), disclosed to stakeholders through Internet. It also aims to apply for an integrated performance scorebord, acting it as a dynamic comparative tool, in particular for listed companies which market value is driven by investors expectations and needs.

Design/methodology/approach – Based on 47 listed companies from the Portuguese Stock Index regulated market, and through an interpretive content analysis, research was driven towards the identification of KPI that were explicitly reported to stakeholders through structured or unstructured frameworks. This qualitative approach supports the evidences about performance indicators reported by listed companies to stakeholders, in particular to potential stockholders.

Findings – Companies disclose a wide variety of key performance indicators, however in most cases included in their periodical management reports. Only a low number of companies disclose those indicators through a visible form in their web sites. Furthermore, KPI disclosed have a generic nature and are usually complemented by theoretical explanations about their evolution and trends. The diversity of indicators disclosed does not permit a comparision between companies and activity sectors. Key performence indicators are still disclosed on a voluntarily basis, remaining, in this scope, multiple agency conflicts and other issues around agency costs. Altough the intensity and categorization in the information disclosure, a standard framework is required in orther to ensure a dynamic comparision between companies or sectors.   

Research limitations – The scope of this research is the Portuguese regulated market. Further research can introduce in the sample companies listed in other European regulated markets or even non listed companies. The indicators selection for the proposed framework was based exclusively on frequencies and not on the value and importance attributed by stakeholders to them. Thus, a survey is required in order to certify that indicators selected are the ones that best fit with stakeholders’ expectations and needs.  Furthermore, the research was based on web sites content and management reports analysis which introduces in the analysis a certain level of subjectivity, natural source of interpretations’ biases.

Practical implications – Empirical evidence is the basis for a structured KPI scoreboard proposal in order to ensure a periodical comparision between companies, from the perspective of external stakeholders.

Originality/value – This paper grants and promotes an integrated overview about the key performance indicators expressly disclosed to stakeholders through Internet by Portuguese listed companies. This evidence has used as a basis for a scorboard proposal towards a comparative analysis in the traditional balanced scorecard perspectives. This scoreboard can be disclosed to market by companies as a basis for an overall performance evaluation and business comprehensiveness. However, further developments are required, in particular in the domain of policy making. Information disclosed to market is not enough regulated in order to minimize the performance analysis discretion and overall transparency.


corporate’s reporting; information disclosure; internet; performance; scoreboard

Full Text:



Abraham, S.; Cox, P. 2007. “Analyzing the determinants of narrative risk information in UK FTSE 100 annual reports”, The British Accounting Review, 39(3): 227-248.

Al-Shammari, B.; Brown, P.; Tarca, A. 2008. “An investigation of compliance with international accounting standards by listed companies in the Gulf Co-Operation Council Member States”, The International Journal of Accounting, 43(4): 425-447.

Aly, D.; Simon, J.; Hussainey, K. 2010. “Determinants of corporate internet reporting: evidence from Egypt”, Managerial Auditing Journal, 25(2): 182-202.

Arrow, K. 1971. Essays in the theory of risk bearing, Chicago: Markham.

Arvidsson, S. 2011. “Disclosure of non-financial information in the annual reports”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, 12(2): 277-300.

Asbaugh, H.; Johnstone, K. M.; Warfield, T. D. 1999. “Corporate Reporting on the Internet”, Accounting Horizons, 13(3): 241-257.

Basu, A.; Lal, R.; Srinivasan, V.; Staelin, R. 1985. ”Sales force compensation plans: An agency theoretic perspective”, Marketing Science, 4: 267-291.

Basuony, M. A.; Mohamed, E. K. 2014. “Determinants of Internet Financial Disclosure in GCC Countries”, Asian Journal of Finance & Accounting, 6(1): 70-89.

Barako, D. G.; Hancock, P.; Izan, H. Y. 2006. “Factors influencing voluntary corporate disclosure by Kenyan companies”, Corporate Governance: An International Review, 14(2): 107-125.

Broberg, P.; Tagesson, T.; Collin, S. 2010. “What explains variation in voluntary disclosure? A study of the annual reports of corporations listed on the Stockholm Stock Exchange”, Journal of Management and Governance, 14: 351-377.

Demski, J. 1980. “A simple case of indeterminate financial reporting”, working paper, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.

DiMaggio, P.; Powell, W. 1991. “The iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in organization fields, in: Powell, W. and DiMaggio, P. (Eds.) The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Dowling, J.; Pfeffer, J. 1975. “Organizational Legitimacy: Social Values and Organizational Behaviour”, Pacific Sociological Review, 18(1): 122-136.

Dragu, I.; Tudor, A. T. 2011. “Developing an econometric model for measuring the evolution of information disclosure – IAS 23 Borrowing costs”, Annales Universitatis Apulensis Series Oeconimica, 13(2): 254-259.

Eisenhardt, K. M. 1985. “Control: Organizational and economic approaches”, Management Science, 31: 134-149.

Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. “Agency theory: an assessment and review”, Academy of Management Review, 14(1): 57-74.

FASB – Financial Accounting Standards Board 2000. “Electronic distribution of business reporting information”, Business Reporting Research Project, available at (accessed on 18 May 2014).

Fama, E. 1980. “Agency problems and the theory of the firm”, Journal of Political Economy, 88: 288-307.

Fontrodona, J.; Sison, A. J. G. 2006. “The Nature of the Firm, Agency Theory and Shareholder Theory: A Critique from Philosophical Anthropology”, Journal of Business Ethics, 66: 33-42.

Gowthorpe, C. 2004. “Asymmetrical dialogue? Corporate financial reporting via the Internet”, Corporate Communications, 9(4): 283-293.

Hunter, S. A.; Smith, L. M. 2009. “Impact of Internet Financial Reporting on Emerging Markets”, Journal of International Business Research, 8(2): 21-40.

Jensen, M.; MecKLing, W. 1976. “Theory of the firm: managerial behaviour, agency costs, and ownership structure”, Journal of Financial Economics, 3: 305-360.

Kaplan, R.; Norton, D. 1996. The Balanced Scorecard: translating strategy into action, Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Khadaroo, M. I. 2005. “Business reporting on the internet in Malaysia and Singapore: a comparative study”, Corporate Communications, 10(1): 58-68.

Mitnick, B. 1986. “The theory of agency and organizational analysis”, University of Pittsburgh.

Oyelere, P.; Kuruppu, N. 2012. “Voluntary internet financial reporting practices of listed companies in the United Arab Emirates”, Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 13(3): 298-315.

Parmenter, D. 2007. Key Performance Indicators: Developing, Implementing, and Using Winning KPIs, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

Ross, S. 1973. “The economic theory of agency: The principal’s problem”, American Economic Review, 63: 13-139.

Ryan, B.; Scapens, W.; Theobald, M. 2002. Research method & Methodology in Finance & Accounting, 2nd edition, Thomson, London.

Sekaran, U.; Bougie, R. 2013. Research Methods for Business, Sixth Edition, John Wiley & Sons, West Sussex.

Spence, A. M.; Zeckhauser, R. 1971. “Insurance, information, and individual action”, American Economic Review, 61: 380-387.

Street, D. L.; Gray, S. J. 2002. “Factors influencing the extent of corporate compliance with international accounting standards: summary of a research monograph”, Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, 11: 51-76.

Tapscott, D.; Ticoll, D.; Lowy, A. 2000. Digital Capital – Harnessing the Power of Business Webs, Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Thomas, A. 1991. “Towards a Contingency Theory of Corporate Financial Reporting System”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 4(4): 40-57.

Uyar, A. 2012. “Determinants of corporate reporting on the internet”, Managerial Auditing Journal, 27(1): 87-104.

Verecchia, R. E. 2000. “Discretionary disclosure”, Journal of Accounting and Economics, 5: 179-194.

Wallace, R. S.; Naser, K.; Mora, A. 1994. “The relationship between the comprehensiveness of corporate annual reports and firm characteristics in Spain”, Accounting and Business Research, 25: 41-53.

Wallace, R. S.; Naser, K. 1995. “Firm-specific determinants of the comprehensiveness of mandatory disclosure in the corporate annual reports and firms listed on the stock exchange of Hong Kong”, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 14(4): 311-368.

Watson, A.; Shrives, P.; Martson, C. 2002. “Voluntary disclosure of accounting ratios in the UK”, British Accounting Review, 34: 289-313.

Wilson, R. 1968. “On the theory of syndicates”, Êconometrica, 36: 119-132.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

"Social Technologies" ISSN online 2029-7564