The United States Steel Corporation, formed in 1901, was the first company in the United States financial markets to be capitalized at the billion dollar level. Its iconic role in the industrial economy of the country has been studied from several dimensions. This research proposes to examine fully the reporting outcomes for the company. Previous content analysis projects [Claire (1945), Vangermeersch (1970, 1979)] have examined shorter periods of US Steel’s external reporting. However, this study will examine a complete set of the company’s annual reports from 1902 to 2006, in hard copy and digital formats. It is motivated by an interest in establishing an historical perspective for a question posed by Ross Watts, “Why do financial reports take their current form?” (Watts, 1977, 2006)
The study is initiated with the undertaking of traditional, manual content analysis of the annual report data set. In this process, five separate eras of financial reporting were identified throughout a century of annual reports. The eras identified are: 1) The Gary Years; 2) The Transition Years; 3) The Voorhees/Tyson Years; 4) The Evolution Years; and 5) The Cost-Effective Years. Each of these eras are distinctive in their reporting style and corporate financial information which was emphasized and reported. Next, a model-based method of content analysis was developed and performed using structured equations in an attempt to identify external variables which may have influenced the content, display, and tone of the annual reports over the period of the study. This analysis did not produce significant results; however, the process of developing the model and analysis of the reports provides a promising pathway for future exploration of single company data sets by clarifying the limitations of such modeling for long periods of time.
The findings altogether assist in improving an understanding of the managerial ideology of the company toward public reporting which appears to have evolved from a stewardship model of corporate reporting to a contract model consistent with the changing configuration of capital providers and management’s view of the information needs of such providers.