Modernising Corporate Reporting: What Does Good Look Like?

Corporate reporting sits at the heart of the relationship between companies and their investors. Done well, it helps the market understand a company’s strategy, performance, prospects, governance and risks. Done less well, important information can become obscured by duplication, boilerplate and an ever-growing volume of disclosure. 

The Government’s Modernising Corporate Reporting consultation therefore presents a welcome opportunity to consider how the UK framework can work better. The objective should not simply be less reporting or less regulation. It should be better reporting: clearer, more proportionate and more useful to the people who rely on it. 

This principle has been central to the Society’s work. Our position paper, published earlier this year, set out the case for reform grounded in investor outcomes. Since then, we have continued to develop our thinking through member discussions, engagement with policymakers and regulators, and a recent roundtable with the Department for Business and Trade. 

What we are hearing 

A strong message from our discussions is that there is considerable support for modernisation and simplification. However, members are equally clear that reducing the length or cost of reporting is not, by itself, a measure of success. 

The real test is whether reform makes it easier for investors to find, understand and compare the information they need. Simplification should remove duplication, immaterial disclosure and unnecessary prescription without weakening transparency, accountability or market confidence. 

There is also support for a clearer distinction between information that is genuinely relevant to the current reporting period and material that changes infrequently. Some static information could potentially sit outside the annual report, provided it remains authoritative, dated, easy to locate and properly archived. This could make annual reports more focused, but it must not result in important information becoming fragmented across multiple channels. 

Digital reporting and artificial intelligence create further opportunities. Investors are increasingly using technology to search, compare and analyse company information. Yet the roundtable discussion cautioned against prescribing particular technologies or formats that could quickly become outdated. Government should focus on the outcomes required, including accessibility, integrity and comparability, while allowing reporting practices and technology to evolve. 

The distinctive role of IR 

IROs occupy a valuable position in this debate. They understand the practical demands of producing corporate reports, but they also hear directly from investors about what information they use, what they struggle to find and where reporting fails to answer their questions. 

That investor-facing perspective is especially important when considering materiality. Decisions about what to include should not be driven solely by technical compliance or by a desire to reduce page numbers. Investor questions, engagement themes, perception research and market feedback can all help companies identify what is genuinely decision-useful. 

IR teams also understand that annual reports do not operate in isolation. They form part of a wider communications system that includes results announcements, presentations, regulatory disclosures, websites, sustainability reports and direct engagement with management and boards. Reform must therefore consider how these different channels work together, rather than simply transferring information and cost from one location to another. 

Proportionality and practical implementation 

The Society supports a reporting framework that is proportionate to the size, complexity and economic significance of the company. But proportionality must be applied carefully. Public markets depend on strong disclosure, while very large private companies can also have significant economic and stakeholder impacts. 

The costs and benefits of individual proposals must also be properly assessed. Requirements involving digital tagging, website governance, solvency statements or additional assurance may deliver benefits, but they could also create new processes and costs. Reform should demonstrably improve the quality or accessibility of information rather than introduce a different form of compliance burden. 

Implementation will be critical. Companies, investors, IROs and other report users should be involved as detailed proposals develop. Sufficient transition time, clear guidance and coordination between government and regulators will all be needed if the reforms are to work effectively in practice. 

Shaping the Society’s response 

The consultation closes on 30 November 2026, and the Society is continuing to gather evidence for its formal response. We are asking members to share their views through a short survey, as well as practical examples of duplication, unnecessary complexity or information that investors genuinely value.  

This evidence will help us advocate for a framework that supports transparency and accountability while making reporting more focused, accessible and useful. The opportunity is not simply to produce shorter annual reports. It is to create a more coherent reporting system that strengthens communication between companies and investors and supports confidence in UK capital markets.