Readability As A Key To Communication In Tourism CSR Reporting: A Sectoral Analysis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29284/5tj1zv32Keywords:
Big Data, communication, content analysis, CSR, readability reporting, tourismAbstract
This study examines the readability of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) reports within the tourism sector, focusing on their effectiveness in communicating with diverse stakeholder groups, including investors, employees, non-governmental organizations, regulatory bodies, and the general public. The findings reveal significant variation in textual accessibility across industries, indicating that specific CSR reports may present comprehension challenges for non-expert audiences and thereby hinder transparency and engagement. A combination of syntactic and semantic metrics was applied to evaluate readability. Three categories of textual features were analyzed: (1) text length indicators, such as average words per sentence, characters per word, and sentences per paragraph; (2) syntactic properties based on part-of-speech (POS) distribution; and (3) semantic characteristics, including average term familiarity and conceptual difficulty. Readability scores were derived from contextual, frequency-based, and conceptual measures, capturing both surface-level and deep-level comprehension demands. The results underscore the importance of incorporating readability considerations into CSR reporting frameworks to ensure more inclusive and transparent communication. By enhancing the clarity of CSR reports, organizations can foster stronger stakeholder relationships and contribute more effectively to sustainability goals within the tourism industry. This study provides evidence-based insights for practitioners, policymakers, and scholars interested in advancing responsible and accessible sustainability reporting.
References
[1] Adámek, P. (2013). Percepce společenské odpovědnosti podnikání v České republice. Slezká univerzita v Opavě. ISBN 9788072488940
[2] Abbott, W. F., & Monsen, R. J. (1979). On the measurement of corporate social responsibility: Self- reported disclosures as a measure of corporate social involvement. Academy of Management Journal, 22(3), 501–515.
[3] Aliaga, M., & Gunderson, B. (2002). Interactive statistics. Prentice Hall.
[4] Alivia, M., Gant, L., & Cordell, A. (2019). CSR strategies for the modern enterprise. Journal of Business Ethics, 159(1), 45–60.
[5] Blessing, L., & Chakrabarti, A. (2009). DRM, a design research methodology. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-587-1
[6] Bowman, E. H., & Haire, M. (1975). A strategic posture toward corporate social responsibility. California Management Review, 18(2), 49–58.
[7] Cochran, P. L., & Wood, R. A. (1984). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 27(1), 42–56. https://doi.org/10.5465/255956
[8] Dalton, D. R., & Cosier, R. A. (1982). The four faces of social responsibility. Business Horizons, 25(3), 19–27.
[9] Du, S., Xu, X., & Yu, K. (2020). Does corporate social responsibility affect auditor-client contracting? Evidence from auditor selection and audit fees. Advances in Accounting, 51, 100517.
[10] Du Toit, E. (2017). The readability of integrated reports. Meditari Accountancy Research, 25(4), 629– 653.
[11] European Union. (2022). EU Digital Services Act (Regulation 2022/2065).
[12] Feng, L. (2008). Annual report readability, current earnings, and earnings persistence. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 45(2–3), 221–247.
[13] Holmes, S. L. (1976). Executive perceptions of corporate social responsibility. Business Horizons, 19(3), 34–40.
[14] Lock, I., & Seele, P. (2016). The credibility of CSR reports in Europe: Evidence from a quantitative content analysis in 11 countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 122, 186–200.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.060
[15] Martínez-Ferrero, J., Rodríguez-Ariza, L., Sánchez, I., & Cuadrado-Ballesteros, B. (2018). Corporate social responsibility disclosure and information asymmetry: The role of family ownership. Review of Managerial Science, 12(2), 285–315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-017-0232-5
[16] Melloni, G., Caglio, A., & Perego, P. (2017). Saying more with less? Disclosure conciseness, completeness, and balance in integrated reports. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 36(3), 220–238.
[17] Nam, H. D., Nguyen, D. V., & Diem, T. T. (2024). Annual report readability and firms’ investment decisions. Cogent Economics & Finance, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2023.2296230
[18] Richards, J. C., & Bohlke, D. (2011). Creating effective language lessons. Cambridge University Press.
[19] Rukmana, D. (2014). Urban planning and development in Indonesia. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 45(4), 583–601.
[20] Schrand, C. M., & Walther, B. R. (2000). Strategic benchmarks in earnings announcements: The selective disclosure of prior-period earnings components. The Accounting Review, 75(2), 151–177.
[21] Si, L., & Callan, J. (2001). A statistical model for scientific readability. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (pp. 574–576).
[22] Smeuninx, N., De Clerck, B., & Aerts, W. (2016). Measuring the readability of sustainability reports: A corpus-based analysis through standard formulae and NLP. Journal of Business Ethics, 57(1), 125–135. https://doi.org/10.1177/23294884166754
[23] Tuzzolino, F., & Armandi, B. R. (1981). A need-hierarchy framework for assessing corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 6(1), 21–28.
[24] Varda, H. M. (2014). Signalling sustainability: Drivers, types of signals and methods (Doctoral dissertation, Cardiff University). https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/68059/1/Hebe%20Varda%20PhD%202014.pdf
[25] Wang, J.-L., Wang, H.-Z., Gaskin, J., & Hawk, S. (2017). The mediating roles of upward social comparison and self-esteem and the moderating role of social comparison orientation in the association between social networking site usage and subjective well-being. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 771.
[26] Yang, X., Wang, Y., Zhang, Y., Liu, Y., & Luo, J. (2021). The influence of COVID-19 on the well-being of people: Big data methods for capturing the well-being of working adults and protective factors nationwide. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 650280. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.650280
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
