Too many non-financial corporate reports fail to hold their readers’
attention because they use complicated language and jargon, the founder
of the Plain English Commission has warned.
Martin Cutts says some reports are ‘exemplary’ in their simple wording,
but ‘others are so flatulent they could power a wind farm’.
Cutts, whose organization provides a Clear English Standard, says CSR
reports often fall down in their use of obscure technical language and
jargon that confuses readers, and by adopting gushing phrases that
appear insincere.
‘Companies spatter buzzwords like “passion” everywhere,’ says Cutts in
a new study of CSR reporting. ‘People think plain language is about
using short words and short sentences, and indeed these are part of the
story. But even more important is saying the right things and keeping
to the essentials. Readers haven’t time for fluff.’
Cutts makes his comment in Directions 05, a survey of CSR reporting trends by consultancy Salterbaxter.
According to the annual study, now in its fifth year, all but a handful
of large UK companies now produce some form of report on their
non-financial performance, so attention is turning more to the quality
of the reports, including the way they are written.
Cutts says there is too much ‘backslapping’ in CSR reports,
particularly in messages from chairmen or chief executives, and has
this advice for report writers:
use short and simple sentencesprefer verbs to abstract nouns because they are easier and livelier to readuse active rather than passive verbsavoid ‘pomposity, verbosity, archaisms and official jargon’organize contents in a logical frameworkmake the type ‘highly legible’ and the layout attractive.
Simon Beavis, founder of Word Works, a writers’ group that advises
companies on communicating, said too many senior executives ‘hold the
misguided belief that using complicated, over-earnest and
inward-looking language loaded with fashionable buzz phrases lends
seriousness’. However, the opposite is true. ‘More often than not,’ he
says, ‘jargon and cliches just make the reader – whether specialist or
non-specialist – tired. They also invite mockery.’
Beavis is worried that the new legal requirements of the UK’s Operating
and Financial Review will put back the progress some companies have
made on using plainer language to describe their social and
environmental impacts.
‘The danger is that some will respond by lurching back into jargon and
legalistic language, with more words and less clarity,’ he said. ‘Such
a step would inspire greater public cynicism in companies at a time
when they can least afford it.’
The survey, which has previously looked mainly at the extent of
reporting, for the first time carries judgments on which companies have
produced the best documents. Among those picked out as leading the pack
in their sectors are Allied Domecq (beverages), Marks & Spencer
(retail), Standard Chartered (banking) and Unilever (food).
In addition, it shows the continuing trend towards coverage of social,
as opposed to purely environmental, concerns. Of 96 reporters studied
this year, the most popular title, in combination with the words
‘review’ or ‘report’, is now Environment, Social and Community Report,
favoured by 26 companies. The titles Citizenship Report and
Sustainability Report are next (both 15), while Corporate
Responsibility is used by 13 and CSR by 12.
