Comparing the Readability of English-Language CEO Statements in Chinese and American CSR Reports: A Linguistic Complexity Perspective

Binji Zao Zhejiang International Studies University ; Huiyu Zhang Zhejiang International Studies University

Abstract

<bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><i>Research problem:</i></b> Taking a linguistic complexity approach, this study conducted a comparative analysis of the readability of English-language CEO statements in Chinese and American corporate social responsibility (CSR) reports. <bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><i>Research question:</i></b> From a linguistic complexity perspective, are there significant differences in the readability of CEO statements between original American CSR reports and English translations of Chinese CSR reports? If so, what are the lexical, syntactic, and cohesive differences between them? <bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><i>Literature review:</i></b> Previous studies of CSR reports’ readability primarily employed classic formula-based readability measures, but a systematic analysis from a linguistic complexity perspective is lacking. Scholarly attention to the readability of translated CSR reports is also scant. <bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><i>Methodology:</i></b> This study collected English-language CEO statements from the CSR reports of American and Chinese top companies and then applied the TAALED and TAALES computational linguistic tools to calculate the lexical complexity, L2SCA to measure the syntactic complexity, and TAACO to gauge the cohesive complexity. <bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><i>Results:</i></b> The results show that there are considerable linguistic variations between the American and Chinese companies’ reports in terms of lexical, syntactic, and cohesive complexity. The CSR reports produced by Chinese firms are generally less readable than those created by American companies. Specifically, they are characterized by higher informational density, more sophisticated words, longer syntactic length, more coordinate phrases, and more complex nominals, as well as fewer connectives, pronouns, and demonstratives. <bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Our findings enrich the present understanding of the readability of CSR reports and communication through a quantitative linguistic lens, and provide practical insights for the CSR communication of firms from non-English-speaking countries in the context of internationalization.

Journal
IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
Published
2025-12-01
DOI
10.1109/tpc.2025.3615258
CompPile
Search in CompPile ↗
Open Access
Closed
Topics
Export

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (0)

No articles in this index cite this work.

Cites in this index (11)

  1. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
  2. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
  3. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly
  4. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
  5. Journal of Business and Technical Communication
Show all 11 →
  1. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
  2. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
  3. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
  4. Journal of Business and Technical Communication
  5. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
  6. Written Communication
Also cites 48 works outside this index ↓
  1. 10.1016/j.ribaf.2024.102346
  2. 10.1111/ijal.12537
  3. 10.1075/ps.7.1.03bon
  4. 10.1177/1750481311427788
  5. 10.1093/applin/amw014
  6. 10.1016/j.esp.2024.06.001
  7. 10.1002/csr.240
  8. 10.1016/j.jcae.2017.05.002
  9. 10.1002/csr.1440
  10. 10.1037/h0057532
  11. Derivation of new readability formulas (Automated Readability Index, Fog Count and Flesch…
  12. 10.1111/1467-9817.12283
  13. 10.3102/0013189x11413260
  14. 10.2308/accr-51387
  15. 10.1177/1750481319876770
  16. 10.1093/applin/amw058
  17. 10.1016/j.esp.2023.01.004
  18. 10.1002/csr.2472
  19. 10.17398/2340-2784.43.77
  20. 10.1075/ijcl.22123.fuo
  21. 10.1177/23294884231208176
  22. 10.1016/j.joi.2019.07.004
  23. 10.1177/002194360203900401
  24. 10.1007/s11192-016-2036-9
  25. 10.1057/9781137388773
  26. 10.1177/2329488416675456
  27. 10.1016/j.jacceco.2008.02.003
  28. 10.3390/su16010260
  29. 10.1111/acfi.12938
  30. 10.1080/15434303.2020.1844205
  31. 10.3758/s13428-017-0924-4
  32. 10.1075/ijcl.15.4.02lu
  33. 10.3758/s13428-015-0651-7
  34. 10.1016/j.jeap.2023.101262
  35. 10.1016/j.jeap.2023.101316
  36. 10.1007/s11192-021-04112-9
  37. 10.1016/j.langsci.2024.101612
  38. 10.1016/j.system.2025.103618
  39. 10.1093/applin/24.4.492
  40. 10.1016/j.system.2023.103002
  41. 10.1017/CBO9780511894664
  42. 10.1075/pbns
  43. 10.4324/9781315841144
  44. 10.1080/08839514.2024.2340393
  45. 10.1016/j.ribaf.2018.12.008
  46. 10.1080/1461670X.2017.1305285
  47. 10.1177/0021943610364523
  48. 10.2308/accr-50725