Readability of Corporate Social Responsibility Reports: A Study on Banks Listed with Dhaka Stock Exchange

(1)

Readability of Corporate Social Responsibility Reports:

A Study on Banks Listed with Dhaka Stock Exchange

Mohammed Moin Uddin Reza¹ Antara Raisa Khan²

Abstract

Banking institutions have been discharging Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) reporting practices and disclosures as one of the forerunners in Bangladesh. The purpose of this study is to examine the readability of annual CSR reports produced by banks listed in Dhaka Stock Exchange, Bangladesh.

The CSR reporting data from annual reports of 20 banking companies from the year 2015 to 2019 has been reviewed. Flesch and Flesch-Kincaid tests have been used to determine readability scores which inform our understanding of the level of reading ease expected from such reports. The findings of the research suggest that the CSR narratives as reported by banking companies in Bangladesh are difficult to read and is becoming even less readable over time as companies continue to follow unstructured disclosure formats which lack in consistency and comparability. This paper contributes to the literature by defining ‘readability’

and identifying the importance of readability ease for enhancing CSR reporting quality for intended users and recommends future researchers to include corporate websites and social networking sites’ data in advanced studies on readability analysis.

Keywords: Commercial bank, Corporate social responsibility, CSR report, Readability analysis, DSE

1.0 Introduction

Annual reports are considered to be the primary channels used by companies to communicate with their stakeholders. Containing both qualitative and quantitative information, annual reports are expected to be useful to its readers in making various types of decisions. Provided the objective, it can be reasonably expected from companies to limit the textual complexity of reports to a level that is comprehensible to most users and „„use plain language, only well-defined

1 Assistant Professor, Department of Business Administration in Accounting and Information Systems, Bangladesh University of Professionals (BUP)

E-mail: [email protected]

2 MBA Student, Department of Business Administration in Accounting and Information Systems, Bangladesh University of Professionals (BUP)

E-mail: [email protected]

(2)

terms, consistent terminology and an easy-to-follow structure‟‟ (Financial Reporting Council, 2009, p. 48).

Quality reporting makes relevant information accessible to interested users, and one important dimension that still remains relatively unexplored is these reports‟

readability. While Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) reports may have things in common with the significantly difficult-to-read category of financial reports, the latter is usually addressed towards a more specialized group of readers such as investors and analysts who are likely to be financially literate and hence, better equipped to deal with the textual complexity of these reports. On the other hand, the audiences of CSR reports are remarkably diverse; any group of stakeholders in the company, whether they are investors, employees, or just a member of the community the company serves, might have an interest in its social and environmental performance and footprints. And it is reasonable to expect that not all readers will be able to decode a level of textual complexity similar to that of financial reports.

So, it is important to identify the readability of CSR narratives provided by different organizations in the annual reports. Stakeholders and stockholders have interest in the non-financial narratives of the companies also. Organizations should follow an easy structure of displaying narratives in the annual reports so that the users can understand with less difficulties. As a part of analyzing such difficulty level of readability of the CSR narratives provided by companies in the annual reports, banking industry of Bangladesh has been targeted in this study.

1.1 Problem Statement

Companies including banking companies communicate financial and non-financial information through their annual reports. Banking companies of

Bangladesh are one of the pioneers in showcasing contributions through corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities. Information regarding CSR activities is one of the most significant non-financial information of a company that are incorporated in the annual reports as well. As stakeholders and stockholders have interest on the non-financial narratives, companies need to understand the diversified background of the stakeholders depending on their education, professional engagement and experiences. So, it is undoubtedly important to make sure that the narratives of the companies are decoded to the stakeholders with due care and simplicity. How simply the stakeholders perceive and understand the non-financial narratives of the companies from the annual reports is the main focus of this research paper.

(3)

1.2 Rationale of the Study

Although few studies agree that reported information is indeed difficult to read and comprehend, some studies have actually scaled the readability of sustainability reporting or CSR reporting. However, much works have been done so far, readability studies have primarily been focused on practices of English-speaking countries like the United States (Subramanian, Insley, &

Blackwell, 1993), the United Kingdom (Jones, 1988), Australia (Parker, 1982), and Canada (Courtis, 1986). However, because of the drastically different legal and economic framework between these countries and ours, the results from these studies cannot be generalized to the context of Bangladesh. However, there are few studies on non-english-speaking countries such as Hong Kong (Courtis, 1995) or Malaysia (Abu Bakar & Ameer, 2011) which have essentially helped the researchers in forming a framework for the study.

1.3 Hypothesis Development

Prior studies mostly focused on exploring relationships between readability of corporate narratives and corresponding indicators of firms‟ performance like profitability, liquidity, and leverage. However, as this study primarily focuses on the textual analysis on CSR communications, the following hypotheses have been developed not only to address the perceived level of ease of readability for CSR narratives, but also to determine the association between ease of readability and time.

Hypothesis 1: Banks‟ CSR narratives are either difficult or very difficult to read.

Hypothesis 2: Banks‟ CSR narratives are becoming less readable over time.

1.4 Objective of the Study

The general objective of this study is to scale the readability of CSR disclosures made by banks listed in Dhaka Stock Exchange of Bangladesh. The difficulty level of CSR narratives has been tested to form an overall picture of the banking industry of Bangladesh in respect of the CSR‟s readability.

The specific objectives of this paper are –

- to examine if the CSR narratives used by banks listed in Dhaka Stock Exchange are easy, difficult or very difficult to read.

- to examine if the readability level of CSR narratives used by banks listed in Dhaka Stock Exchange are improving or declining over the periods.

(4)

2. Literature Review

CSR is a contextual concept that questions the relationship between a company and its environment. CSR also acts as a potential threat between a company and its environment as the concept is circled around demanding a solution of environmental challenges. The concept of CSR starts to operate when the expectations of stakeholders are met. The subject of addressing and providing solutions is about ethics and values, hence CSR builds a bridge between the stakeholders and the company with potential conflicts. Thus, it is important to show the true picture and real impacts of designed CSR to the stakeholders of the company. Scholars have reported systematic means (Unerman, 2000; Adams, 2004; O‟Dwyer, Unerman, & Hession, 2005) by which CSR can be displayed.

But it is essential to discharge accountability for which it much also disclose

„corporate acceptability‟ of the company‟s CSR (Adams, 2004). The future of companies that are currently operating depends on how key stakeholders perceive the company (Cornelissen, 2004). Thus, it is essential for the companies to build and nurture relationships with stakeholders in a strategic and organized manner.

Reporting is done by companies in this regard and is also widely accepted as a corporate communication tool. Most stakeholders judge the reports to determine the legitimacy. Thus, it is essential for the organizations to also determine how to prepare reports consistently on CSR as the presentation of individual report influences the perception of stakeholders (Ellerup & Thomsen, 2007). Investors‟

decisions highly rely on CSR activities to make investment decisions (Elliott et al., 2014) that may induce a good number of firms to produce separate CSR reports. Having extensive information (Casey and Grenier 2015), these reports have effectively brought capital market benefits to the firm (Lys et al., 2015). A study showed the demand and use of „CSR information‟ in Australia (Tilt, 2004).

A study based on Ireland has revealed that Irish non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are driven by a desire for accountability, as reported by the study (O‟Dwyer, Unerman, and Hession, 2005). On the other hand, another Australian study (Deegan and Rankin, 1997) revealed that users seek out environmental information in reports. Consequently, recent empirical study by Van Staden, (2010) showed that individual shareholders too demand environmental information as they perceive companies to be accountable for the way they put their impact on the environment.

One of the theories that is frequently referred to for the purpose of explaining CSR readability is the legitimacy theory (Gray et al., 1995). It is the basis of CSR disclosures and the idea of this theory is based on a company‟s social communication with its environment. According to this theory, companies are

(5)

pressurized by external stakeholders to take actions that will provide transparency to its operations which must also be parallel to the law and the principles of economics (Krasodomska, 2015). Legitimacy here refers to the conformation of entity to the norms, values and definitions of the larger system of which it is a part.

As such, banks perform an array of socially responsible functions entailing

„efficient allocation of capital‟ and „accumulation of savings‟. Banks perform as a socially responsible entity according to the expectations of the society. Thus, it is important for banks to integrate activities in their operations that would provide benefit to the environment and the society. For playing a crucial role in economic development and sustainability, societal perception on the banking industry is changing which was previously thought to be weakly influential to the environment and society (Barako & Brown, 2008). Areas such as „ethics‟,

„community involvement‟, „transparency of reporting‟ and „caring about the development and satisfaction of employees‟ have become crucial to get incorporated alongside financial reporting. This produces a chance to enhance financial performance and produce „reputational capital‟. Banks have weak competition when it comes to providing banking products since all of them are almost similar. But having a good reputation can kick-start a bank‟s growth and set it apart from other banks (Szpringer, 2009). Therefore, brand image enables banks to expand their customer base or even charge higher prices for the service provided, alongside attracting high-performing employees, high-value clients and win public trust (Achua Jo, 2008).

Transparency, a quality measure of CSR communication, enhances the relationship between the investors and the companies. The concept is linked to reporting, precisely to sustainability reporting. (Kaptein & Van Tulder, 2003).

However, in Bangladesh, absence of CSR reports have been reported as opposed to CG reporting which is gaining popularity in developing nations mostly (Belal, 2000). According to a study by Hallaby & Samy (2009), human resource disclosure was highly emphasized in the banks of Bangladesh. Half of its respondents reported that they had directly participated in social activities. Half of the sample also claimed to create various foundations to support social causes, positively signaling towards their users and the community as a whole. However, inadequate disclosures make these rather „blurred‟ in the eyes of the users.

Formal reporting segments were missing in almost all the samples observed, and the length or quality of such reports were mostly confined within a few lines and pages.

(6)

Research Gap:

From the study of the available literatures on the readability on CSR narratives, it has been clearly noticed that there is no work on this time demanding issue in Bangladesh. Hence the authors have found it to be reasonable to work on the readability on CSR narratives in the context of Bangladesh and the research gap is visibly justified thereon.

3. Theoretical Framework Concept of Readability

Readability is not exactly an easily defined term. In order to measure readability, it is important to identify the context of readability. In a study (Klare, 1963), readability was defined as „the ease of understanding or comprehension due to the style of writing‟, which means readability simultaneously reconciles writing style with content and overall coherence (DuBay, 2004). Readability has also been described by DuBay (2004). as „the degree to which a given class of people find certain reading matter compelling and comprehensible‟. Davison & Kantor (1982) defined readability by emphasizing on background knowledge that is assumed by readers rather than trying to fit the level of readability in a formula.

Another study suggests that readability is "ensuring that a given piece of writing reaches and affects its audience in the way the author intends". It has also been defined as the degree of linguistic difficulty in terms of structure (Still, 1972).

The purpose of readability is to match the text with the readers in order to increase the level of ease to understand (Islam, 2016).

Measures of Readability

Approximately 70 versions of readability formulas have been developed from different elements of style (Klare, 1964). Readability formulas compute ease scores for specific passages, indicating to what extent these are likely to be understood by the intended reader groups. To determine readability, researchers often use Fog Index in accounting and finance literature (Lawrence, 2013). Fog Index is a popular readability tool according to a study by Loughran & Mcdonald (2014) and is an accepted choice in respect to financial research. However, results showed that the formula is not an appropriate measure of readability of such financial documents.

Another measure that is popularly used in accounting communicative texts (Clatworthy & Jones, 2001; Parker, 2005) is the Flesch formula for its simplicity in predicting reading ease of narratives (Sydserff & Weetman, 2002; Courtis,

(7)

2004). There are more formulas that define the degree of readability or comprehension. Each formula is used on the basis of how readability is perceived.

i. Flesch-Kinkaid Grade Level

The Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level was developed by the US Navy to determine the difficulty of technical manuals. The formula assesses the readability of a particular text by grading it that will determine their reading level.

Grade Level = 0.39 Total words

Total sentences + 11.8 ( Total syllables

Total words ) – 15.59 ii. Flesch Reading Ease

The Flesch Reading Ease formula is not related to grade levels as it was initially developed to evaluate adult reading materials. It evaluates texts with a notional comprehension score out of 100. A lower score defines higher difficulty of the text. The formula is:

Reading Ease = 206.835 - 1.015 ( Total words

Total sentences ) – 84.6 ( Total syllables

Total words ) Empirical Research

Hossain & Siddiquee (2008) in their study analyzed the correlation between readability scores and narrative elements (i.e. sentence, paragraphs, etc.) of management reviews including director's reports and chairman's letters of 139 companies listed in the Dhaka Stock Exchange (DSE). The study also explored the relationship between readability scores and indicators of performance, market

& industry category and age of the studied firms. Results of the study revealed that management reviews were difficult to read. Performing industries at DSE prepared management reports that were easier to read and well performing ones prepared reports that were difficult to read. Firms in the banking, investment, services, fuel and power industries tended to have the longest directors' reports according to the study. Longer documents appeared to be more tedious and more difficult in terms of readability.

Ali et. al. (2017) based their study on content analysis of 76 research articles and explored the factors that drive Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) disclosure in both developed and developing countries. Study showed that CSR reporting agenda was driven by certain firm characteristics (company size, industry, profitability, and corporate governance regulations). Some other factors like political, social, and cultural factors also seems to have impacted CSR disclosure agenda. Significant differences were seen between the determinants of CSR disclosures in developed and developing countries. Whereas in developed countries, the disclosures were influenced by external forces i.e. regulators,

(8)

shareholders, investors, etc., developing countries were seen to receive less public pressure with regards to CSR disclosure in comparison.

Ahmed, Newaz, Danish, Usman, & Shaukat (2017) in their study attempted to measure the readability of mission statements of 169 Islamic banks. But findings revealed that these were difficult to read and comprehend. It was also revealed that on average an individual would be required to have at least 17 years of formal education in order to comprehend these statements.

4. Methodology

In preparing the textual analysis for this study, secondary sources were used to collect CSR reporting data and compared against globally acceptable readability indices for drawing conclusions. Mainly company websites have been used to collect banks‟ annual reports manually, from where CSR reports were extracted for further analysis.

Moreover, other academic papers on similar analysis, although not in the context of Bangladesh, served as the main sources of muse for designing the conceptual framework of the study, for all of which proper referencing were done.

At present there are 32 listed banks in Bangladesh (Dhaka Stock Exchange, n.d.).

As the study focuses on CSR disclosures in a company‟s annual report, only the banks listed in Dhaka Stock Exchange (DSE) were selected as the population.

Listed companies are known to prepare annual reports as mandated by the regulatory laws of Bangladesh Bank, whereas unlisted companies may or may not choose to disclose such information to the public as per their own discretion.

Hence, the population consists of all listed banks for the last five years, spanning from 2014-2018.

Despite not having any uniform established format guiding the practice, most listed banks have come up with their own structure for disclosing CSR related activities. As such, most companies have a separate section for standalone CSR reports, and some have integrated CSR reporting into their Sustainable Reports as per GRI.

However, cases of unfriendly user formats and unstructured disclosures are recurring in cases of certain banks. For example, some banks use pictorial format as full representation of their CSR disclosures, rather than proper reporting. As such, these banks have been excluded from the sample.

(9)

Table 1: Determination of Sample Size

N

Total Listed Banks in DSE 32

Having unfriendly user formats 6

Not having CSR disclosures 1

Having missing data 5

Final Sample Size 20

Banks which made disclosures in Bengali have also been excluded from this analysis because English is the accepted language for reporting purposes.

Moreover, there have been a few cases of missing reports too. Therefore, ultimately 20 banks have been selected for the purpose of this study.

Banks were identified with comprehensive CSR reports issued by the listed banks from 2014 to 2018. The relevant reporting section of CSR disclosures were then manually extracted from the whole report, and converted into plain texts. In doing so, all the figures and tables as well as pictures were removed in order to accurately generate readability scores.

Table 2: Main Tools to Measure Readability Main Tools to Measure Readability Measure Procedure

Readability Flesch formula and derivation: Flesch–Kincaid

Dale–Chall formula

Fog formula and derivation: Smog and Kwolek

Fry graph

Lix formula and derivation: Rix

For this study, the Flesch Readability Score was employed as a measure for readability of CSR communications. This particular scoring method was chosen as it is widely accepted and used worldwide for studies of similar nature, and given that using this formula readability scores can be determined on a scale of 0 to 100- where a higher score indicates greater ease, and a lower score indicates more difficulty.

According to Courtis (1995), there are more than 80 aspects related to readers‟

ease of comprehension when it comes to scaling readability of texts i.e. content, format, style, and so on. However, over time only two variables have become

(10)

known as good indicators of readability difficulty estimation; word and sentence length. Therefore, readability score is represented by the formula is as follows:

Reading Ease = 206.835 - 1.015 ( Total words

Total sentences ) – 84.6 ( Total syllables

Total words ) Grade Level = 0.39 Total words

Total sentences + 11.8 ( Total syllables

Total words ) – 15.59 Table 3: Flesch Formula Scores and Correlation with Levels of Reading Ease

and Corresponding Grade Level

Flesch Formula Scores and their Correlation with Levels of Reading Ease and Corresponding Grade Level

Score Level of Reading Ease Grade Level

0-30 Very Difficult College Graduate

31-50 Difficult College

51-60 Fairly Difficult 10-12^th Grade

61-70 Standard 8-9^thGrade

71-80 Fairly Easy 7^th Grade

81-90 Easy 6^th Grade

91-100 Very Easy 5^th Grade

For hypothesis - 1, the readability scores using Flesch formula will be computed using the Review function in Microsoft Word, and from the scores the corresponding level of reading ease and grade level will be determined. This will show whether CSR narratives are indeed difficult to read, and to what extent.

For hypothesis - 2, in order to portray the readability evolution of companies‟

CSR narratives over time, the researchers will graph the readability scores in respect to five years.

In order to achieve the objective of this paper, that is testing the readability of CSR narratives of the banking industry of Bangladesh, the researchers have tested the above two hypotheses and accepted or rejected the hypotheses depending on the findings.

(11)

5. Findings and Discussion

Table 4: Average Readability Scores & Grade Levels Average Readability Scores and Grade Levels

Name of Bank 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Bank Average

Score

Bank Average

Ease Level AB Bank Limited 38.53 26.47 31.85 35.37 40.14 34.47 Difficult Bank Asia Limited 31.79 37.47 29.25 27.91 32.64 31.81 Difficult BRAC Bank Limited 35.71 27.63 33.42 28.99 35.41 32.23 Difficult Dhaka Bank Limited 36.57 34.95 33.21 39.08 41.28 37.02 Difficult Dutch-Bangla Bank Limited 64.09 60.44 63.17 64.43 64.05 63.23 Standard Eastern Bank Limited 34.01 37.46 29.19 32.21 30.28 32.63 Difficult Islami Bank Bangladesh Limited 38.48 42.30 45.99 55.40 65.66 49.57 Difficult Jamuna Bank Limited 91.71 92.37 60.81 46.10 34.06 65.01 Standard Mercantile Bank Limited 31.29 34.53 31.14 32.75 30.77 32.10 Difficult Mutual Trust Bank Limited 21.30 25.82 35.67 54.32 28.53 33.13 Difficult National Bank Limited 31.51 32.85 37.62 35.89 24.03 32.38 Difficult One Bank Limited 39.45 40.52 42.96 42.46 9.87 35.05 Difficult Premier Bank Limited 37.69 29.29 44.02 37.87 34.91 36.75 Difficult Prime Bank Limited 43.48 44.74 47.26 45.65 50.81 46.39 Difficult Shahjalal Islami Bank Limited 39.45 21.88 21.83 21.11 26.49 26.15 Very

Difficult Social Islami Bank Limited 44.23 51.89 45.62 25.63 54.81 44.44 Difficult Southeast Bank Limited 38.38 59.35 33.12 35.29 33.40 39.91 Difficult Trust Bank Limited 30.19 32.14 33.26 24.09 37.15 31.37 Difficult United Commercial Bank Limited 31.32 20.69 32.84 13.87 22.72 24.29 Very

Difficult Uttara Bank Limited 37.74 27.30 32.36 26.89 27.28 30.31 Very

Difficult Year Average Score 39.84 39.00 38.23 36.27 36.21

Year Average Ease Level Diffic ult

Diffic ult

Diffic ult Table 5: Summary of Readability Scores

Count Percentage

Standard 2 10%

Difficult 15 75%

Very Difficult 3 15%

Total 20 100%

(12)

Hypothesis - 1 is proven to be indeed true. Table 5 shows the summary of readability scores, where out of the 20 banks, CSR reports of 15 banks (75%) was determined as „difficult‟ to read. Three banks (15%) were classified as „very difficult‟ to read. Only two banks, namely Dutch-Bangla Bank Ltd. and Jamuna Bank Ltd. were determined to have a standard score. However, it is clear that Jamuna Bank‟s standard score is a reflection of its easier-to-read reports in 2014 and 2015, and has recently got difficult.

Table 6: Percentage Decline in Readability Level

Year Readability Score % Decline

2014 39.84

2015 39.00 2.11%

2016 38.23 1.99%

2017 36.27 5.13%

2018 36.21 0.14%

Figure 1: Average Industry Score Over Time

39.84

39.00

38.23

36.27 36.21

36.00 36.50 37.00 37.50 38.00 38.50 39.00 39.50 40.00 40.50

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Average Industry Score Over Time

(13)

Similarly, graphing the average scores of 2014-2018 from Table 6, it can be seen that the industry trend is also worsening over time as CSR communications are getting more and more difficult to read. This may be because as more and more focus is given to CSR aspects by different stakeholders, companies are at a hurry to „window-dress‟ their reports to reflect a good image of their company activities whilst forgetting the concept of “less is more”, thereby explaining the continuous decline in readability ease between 2014-2017. However, industry average scores show that the decline in ease level to be slowing down in 2018 (decline of 0.14%), and it is yet to be seen if the trend is to continue over the coming years. As such, hypothesis 2 also holds true that in fact CSR narratives is becoming less readable over time.

6. Recommendations and Conclusion

The overall study reveals that from the sample investigated, the CSR communication of the listed banks in general are difficult to read. Both the hypotheses developed to understand the textual comprehensibility were supported, showing that CSR narratives as reported by these banks are hard to read and actually gets harder over time.

These results suggest that companies should report their CSR narratives in a manner that is easier to comprehend for general users, through the use of simpler words or sentences, and fewer jargons. Moreover, our results signal towards the necessity of regulating the disclosure framework for CSR practices by industry regulators, in order to help readers understand the content communicated to a larger extent, and also to improve the overall consistency and comparability of CSR reports across companies.

Given that this study was conducted as somewhat a replication of foreign researches previously done, naturally there are opportunities for further investigation. For example, the researchers have only considered the banking industry in this study to compare between individual bank practices to gain an insight into the sector. However, perhaps comparing the banking sector with other industries could have given a better reflection of the CSR disclosure scenario.

Moreover, in respect to the conclusion drawn from readability analysis and time, the researchers we have factored in only data from past five years, and it is suggested that future researches should consider a longer observation time frame to produce far more interesting explanations as to the fluctuation in readability levels. As such, a larger sample observed over a longer period could bring interesting results.

(14)

The last limitation relates to the readability formula itself and its appropriateness in representing the various communication channels used these days by companies to disseminate information regarding their CSR activities. As such, future research should bring into account corporate websites and company social networking sites for example, as these are also now increasingly used by companies to bring stakeholders‟ attention to the CSR activities carried out by them. And while they are at it, as the world is moving more and more towards infographics and visual representation of the CSR performance, it should also be a priority to think of ways to factor these in future research

References

Achua, J. K. (2008). Corporate social responsibility. Society and Business Review, 3(1), 57-71. doi:10.1108/17465680810852748

Adams, C. A. (2004). The ethical, social and environmental reporting- performance portrayal gap. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 17(5), 731 – 757. doi:10.1108/09513570410567791

Ahmed, I., Newaz, M. M., Danish, R. K., Usman, A., & Shaukat, M. Z. (2017).

Objectives of Islamic banks: a missive from mission statements and stakeholders‟. Journal of Islamic Accounting and Business Research, 8(3), 284-303.

doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/JIABR-08-2014-0028

Ali, W., Frynas , J. G., & Mahmood, Z. (2017). Determinants of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Disclosure in Developed and Developing Countries: A Literature Review. Corporate Social Responsibility and

Environmental Management, 24(4), 273-294.

doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1410

Barako , D. G., & Brown, A. M. (2008). Corporate Social Reporting and Board Representation: Evidence from the. Journal of Management and Governance, 12(1), 309-324.

Belal, A. R. (2016). Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting in Developing Countries–The Case of Bangladesh. Routledge.

Casey, R. J., & Grenier, J. H. (2015). Understanding and Contributing to the Enigma of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Assurance in the United States. AUDITING: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 34(1), 97- 130.

Clatworthy, M., & Jones , M. J. (2001). The effect of thematic structure on the variability of annual report readability. Accounting, Auditing &

Accountability Journal, 14(3), 311-326.

(15)

doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/09513570110399890

Courtis, J. K. (1995). Readability of annual reports: Western versus Asian evidence. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 8(2), 4-17.

doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/09513579510086795

Dale, E., & Chall, J. S. (1948). A Formula for Predicting Readability:

Instructions. Educational Research Bulletin, 27(2), 37-54.

Davison, A., & Kantor, R. N. (1982). On the Failure of Readability Formulas to Define Readable Texts: A Case Study from Adaptations. Reading Research Quarterly, 17(2).

Dhaka Stock Exchange. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.dse.com.bd/index.php DuBay, W. (2004). The Principles of Readability . Impact Information,

California.

Elliott, W. B., Jackson, K. E., & Peecher, M. E. (2014). The Unintended Effect of Corporate Social Responsibility Performance on Investors' Estimates of Fundamental Value. The Accounting Review, 89(1), 275-302.

Flesch, R. (1948). A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology.

32(3), 221–233. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/h0057532

Gray, R., Kouhy, R., & Lavers, S. (1995). Corporate social and environmental reporting: A review of the literature and a longitudinal study of UK disclosure. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability, 8(2), 47-77.

Gunning, R. (1952). Technique of clear writing. McGraw-Hill, New York

Hossain, M. F., & Siddiquee, M. (2008). Readability of Management Reviews in the Annual Reports of Listed Companies of Bangladesh.

Islam, M. S. (2016). Performance and Readability of Corporate Annual Reports of Bangladesh. Journal of Governance and Innovation, 2(1), 59-68.

Kaptein, M, & Tulder, R.V. (2003). Toward Effective Stakeholder Dialogue.

Business and Society Review, 108(2), 203–224.

Klare, G. R. (1974 - 1975). Assessing Readability. Reading Research Quarterly, 10(1), 62-102. doi:10.2307/747086

Krasodomska, J. (2015). CSR disclosures in the banking industry. Empirical evidence from Poland. Social Responsibility Journal, 11(3), 406-423.

doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-02-2013-0019

Lawrence, A. (2013). Individual Investors and Financial Disclosure. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 56(1), 130-147.

(16)

Loughran , T., & Mcdonald, B. (2014). Measuring Readability in Financial Disclosures. The Journal of Finance, 69(4), 1643–1671.

doi:doi:10.1111/jofi.12162

Lys, T., Naughton , J. P., & Wang, C. (2015). Signaling through corporate accountability reporting. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 60(1), 56-72. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2015.03.001

O'Dwyer, B., Hession, E., & Unerman, J. (2005). User needs in sustainability reporting: Perspectives of stakeholders in Ireland. European Accounting Review, 14(4), 759-787. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180500104766 Parker, L. (2005). Social and environmental accountability research: a view from the commentary box. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 18(6), 842‐60.

Sydserff, R., & Weetman, P. (2002). Developments in content analysis: a transitivity index and DICTION scores. Accounting, Auditing &

Accountability Journal, 15(4), 523‐545.

Tilt, C. A. (2004). Influences on corporate social disclosure: A look at lobby groups ten years on. School of Commerce Research Paper Series, Flinders University, 4(1), 11-32.

Unerman, J. (2000). Methodological issues: Reflections on quantification in corporate social reporting content analysis. Auditing & Accountability Journal, 13(5), 667–680.

Van Staden, C. J. (2007). A comprehensive comparison of corporate environmental reporting and responsiveness. British Accounting Review, 39(3), 197–210

.

(17)

Annex-1

Flesch Readability Scores & Grade Levels Calculation

RE Readability Ease GL Grade Level Bank Year Total

Words Total Sentences

Total Syllables

RE Score

Ease

Level GL Avg.

RE Avg.

Ease Level

Avg.

GL

AB Bank

2014 2389 123 4196 38.53 Difficult 12.71

34.47 Difficult 13.87 2015 1146 48 2115 26.47 Very

Difficult 15.50 2016 2596 113 4654 31.85 Difficult 14.52 2017 1207 58 2145 35.37 Difficult 13.50 2018 1160 53 1981 40.14 Difficult 13.10

Bank Asia Limited

2014 3253 163 5952 31.79 Difficult 13.78

31.81 Difficult 13.96 2015 1079 57 1915 37.47 Difficult 12.74

2016 970 48 1801 29.25 Very

Difficult 14.20 2017 1145 50 2107 27.91 Very

Difficult 15.06 2018 1115 52 2009 32.64 Difficult 14.03

BRAC Bank Limited

2014 1034 50 1835 35.71 Difficult 13.42

32.23 Difficult 14.47 2015 3407 124 6094 27.63 Very

Difficult 16.23 2016 4806 207 8513 33.42 Difficult 14.37 2017 5290 231 9667 28.99 Very

Dhaka Bank Limited

2014 7217 344 12708 36.57 Difficult 13.37

2016 6420 318 11621 33.21 Difficult 13.64 2017 2446 138 4330 39.08 Difficult 12.21 2018 4554 279 8020 41.28 Difficult 11.56 Dutch-

Bangla Bank Limited

2014 20629 996 29682 64.09 Standard 9.47

63.23 Standard 9.65 2015 25928 1311 38715 60.44 Fairly

Difficult 9.74

(18)

2016 23577 1098 33965 63.17 Standard 9.78 2017 28230 1334 40350 64.43 Standard 9.53 2018 29514 1363 42145 64.05 Standard 9.70

Eastern Bank Limited

2014 3632 174 6510 34.01 Difficult 13.70

2016 1278 60 2357 29.19 Very

Difficult 14.54

Islami Bank Bangladesh Limited

2014 4193 198 7279 38.48 Difficult 13.15

2016 2904 188 4983 45.99 Difficult 10.68 2017 1651 86 2575 55.40 Fairly

Difficult 10.30 2018 2673 173 3965 65.66 Standard 7.94

Jamuna Bank Limited

2014 7379 317 7981 91.71 Very Easy 6.25

65.01 Standard 8.75 2015 5993 423 7090 92.37 Very Easy 3.90

2016 8424 335 11999 60.81 Fairly

Difficult 11.02 2017 6292 554 11097 46.10 Difficult 9.65 2018 9373 529 17150 34.06 Difficult 12.91

Mercantile Bank Limited

2014 2832 141 5194 31.29 Difficult 13.88

2016 2816 150 5214 31.14 Difficult 13.58 2017 3213 165 5861 32.75 Difficult 13.53 2018 2405 147 4533 30.77 Very

Difficult 13.03

Mutual Trust Bank

Limited

2014 1321 79 2632 21.30 Very

Difficult 14.44

33.13 Difficult 14.83 2015 1455 90 2831 25.82 Very

Difficult 13.67 2016 720 16 1068 35.67 Difficult 19.46 2017 972 51 1530 54.32 Fairly

Difficult 10.42

(19)

2018 4903 177 8704 28.53 Very

Difficult 16.16

National Bank Limited

2014 1871 92 3421 31.51 Difficult 13.92

2016 1031 46 1785 37.62 Difficult 13.58 2017 1615 77 2857 35.89 Difficult 13.46 2018 1926 88 3656 24.03 Very

Difficult 15.34

One Bank Limited

2014 645 47 1170 39.45 Difficult 11.17

2016 461 34 818 42.96 Difficult 10.64 2017 477 37 853 42.46 Difficult 10.54

2018 898 51 1901 9.87 Very

Difficult 16.26

Premier Bank Limited

2014 1437 82 2571 37.69 Difficult 12.36

36.75 Difficult 12.93 2015 1357 50 2406 29.29 Very

Prime Bank Limited

2014 15173 548 24257 43.48 Difficult 14.07

2016 16006 658 25520 47.26 Difficult 12.71 2017 9953 353 15596 45.65 Difficult 13.90 2018 10481 378 15843 50.81 Difficult 13.06

Shahjalal Islami Bank

Limited

2014 1237 48 2065 39.45 Difficult 14.16

26.15 Very Difficult 15.56 2015 1314 55 2496 21.88 Very

Difficult 16.14 2016 1255 52 2381 21.83 Very

Difficult 16.21 2017 1300 52 2464 21.11 Very

Difficult 16.53 2018 1337 64 2515 26.49 Very

Difficult 14.75

(20)

Social Islami Bank Limited

2014 1622 71 2673 44.23 Difficult 12.77

44.44 Difficult 12.00 2015 1229 98 2066 51.89 Fairly

2017 550 19 987 25.63 Very

Difficult 16.88 2018 753 33 1147 54.81 Fairly

Difficult 11.28

Southeast Bank Limited

2014 2191 102 3798 38.38 Difficult 13.24

39.91 Difficult 12.80 2015 2293 104 3391 59.35 Fairly

Trust Bank Limited

2014 842 39 1540 30.19 Very

Difficult 14.41

2016 690 36 1257 33.26 Difficult 13.38

2017 848 34 1578 24.09 Very

United Commercial

Bank Limited

2014 643 32 1179 31.32 Difficult 13.88

24.29 Very Difficult 17.33 2015 1299 40 2352 20.69 Very

Difficult 17.85

2018 904 34 1679 22.72 Very

Difficult 16.70

Uttara Bank Limited

2014 764 35 1327 37.74 Difficult 13.42

30.31 Very Difficult 13.90

2015 731 37 1378

27.30 Very

Difficult 14.36

2016 761 41 1400

32.36 Difficult 13.36

2017 752 41 1434

26.89 Very

Difficult 14.06

2018 780 40 1473

27.28 Very

Difficult 14.30