Do Corporate Annual Reports Communicate Corporate Strategy?

Metamorphosis ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 62-79
Author(s):  
R. Srinivasan

Author(s):  
Rosli Mohamad ◽  
Azhar Abdul Rahman

The main purpose of this paper is to compare the readability of two narrative sections in Malaysian corporate annual reports. Further more the authors investigate whether readability of one section reflects the readability of another section. On top of that, consistency of the readability level across companies is also reviewed. The study assess the readability of the chairman’s statement and notes to the accounts of top 100 Malaysian corporations using Flesch readability formula. Overall results indicated consistent finding with prior studies with which the readability of both narratives is considered as very difficult to read. Specifically, the findings revealed that the management does not present the chairman’s statement in a more readable style despite greater flexibility offered in its presentation than notes to the accounts. Further test also confirmed that a readable chairman’s statement is not necessarily followed by readable notes to the accounts and vice versa. Finally, the study reported that readability of notes to the accounts is more consistent among companies than the chairman’s statement. It is therefore recommended that the management should consider presenting the chairman’s statement in a plain English to ensure that investors accurately receive the conveyed message.  



1989 ◽  
pp. 173-188
Author(s):  
Donald E. Garrett


2002 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 188-189
Author(s):  
Dolores Fidishun




2001 ◽  
Vol 106 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Campbell ◽  
Philip Shrives ◽  
Heike Bohmbach-Saager


2011 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 824-862
Author(s):  
Neveen Abdelrehim ◽  
Josephine Maltby ◽  
Steven Toms

A new conceptualization of corporate social responsibility (CSR) is presented as a means of asserting and maintaining corporate control in the face of political, economic, and social challenges. The Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) applied different strategies to maintain control of its Iranian assets in the face nationalist demands—political and covert mechanisms, market based, resource access controls, and CSR programs. This paper investigates the third, and least explored, strand of their strategy. It identifies managerial strategies for CSR engagement with respect to three corresponding interest groups: politicians and diplomats, shareholders, and local employees, drawing on a variety of previously unused archival sources. From prior studies it is unclear whether the AIOC's CSR programs, for example, in employment and housing, were motivated by social improvement, its business agenda, or responses to legislative pressures from the Iranian government. A detailed examination of CSR policy and private correspondence between AIOC's senior executives about their negotiations with the Iranian government shows that they engaged in and reported voluntary CSR activities to strengthen their reputation and negotiating position but refused to compromise on aspects of CSR that threatened the existing managerial hierarchy of control. This interpretation is supported by a content analysis of the company's annual reports in the years before and after nationalization, revealing a choice of topics and language intended to support its self-presentation as a socially concerned employer. The results of this study have wider implications for understanding CSR reporting as a corporate strategy to enhance negotiating and bargaining positions.



Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document