IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ibn/eltjnl/v11y2018i11p122.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Comparative Study on Engagement Resources in American and Chinese CSR Reports

Author

Listed:
  • Chen Pinying

Abstract

Based on Martin and White’s (2005) heteroglossic engagement system of Appraisal Theory, adopting UAM Corpus Tool and Chi-Square test, this study aims to explore authorial stance and distinctive rhetorical strategies that have been employed to realize interpersonal meaning by the application of engagement resources in American and Chinese CSR reports. It can be concluded that all types of engagement resources are widely employed in both American and Chinese corpus, with contraction resources significantly different in two corpora. It also finds that American CSR reports employ each type of engagement markers equally, while Chinese CSR reports tend to highly use expansion resources to enhance authorial voice. Besides, American CSR reports employ contraction resources in a more diversified and flexible way than Chinese CSR reports writers do. Lastly, they are also different in acknowledging what kinds of external propositions as expansion resources. This study confirms that engagement system is an important tool to help CSR reports writers to align authorial voices with readers, thereby accomplishing promotional and persuasive purposes. It may give some implications to CSR report addressers, addressees, business English teaching and reading.

Suggested Citation

  • Chen Pinying, 2018. "A Comparative Study on Engagement Resources in American and Chinese CSR Reports," English Language Teaching, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 11(11), pages 122-122, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:ibn:eltjnl:v:11:y:2018:i:11:p:122
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/elt/article/download/0/0/37175/37344
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/elt/article/view/0/37175
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bonsall, Samuel B. & Leone, Andrew J. & Miller, Brian P. & Rennekamp, Kristina, 2017. "A plain English measure of financial reporting readability," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 329-357.
    2. Luo, Le & Tang, Qingliang, 2014. "Does voluntary carbon disclosure reflect underlying carbon performance?," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 191-205.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Omaima A.G. Hassan & Peter Romilly, 2018. "Relations between corporate economic performance, environmental disclosure and greenhouse gas emissions: New insights," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(7), pages 893-909, November.
    2. Cory A. Cassell & Lauren M. Cunningham & Ling Lei Lisic, 2019. "The readability of company responses to SEC comment letters and SEC 10-K filing review outcomes," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 1252-1276, December.
    3. Zhang, Yi & Hu, Ailing & Wang, Jiahua & Zhang, Yaojie, 2022. "Detection of fraud statement based on word vector: Evidence from financial companies in China," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 46(PB).
    4. repec:arp:tjssrr:2019:p:117-127 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Cameron Truong & Thu Ha Nguyen & Thanh Huynh, 2021. "Customer satisfaction and the cost of capital," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 293-342, March.
    6. Khaled Alsaifi & Marwa Elnahass & Abdullah M. Al-Awadhi & Aly Salama, 2022. "Carbon disclosure and firm risk: evidence from the UK corporate responses to climate change," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 12(3), pages 505-526, September.
    7. Ion Madrazo Azpiazu & Maria Soledad Pera, 2020. "Is cross‐lingual readability assessment possible?," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 71(6), pages 644-656, June.
    8. Dong Ding & Bin Liu & Millicent Chang, 2023. "Carbon Emissions and TCFD Aligned Climate-Related Information Disclosures," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 182(4), pages 967-1001, February.
    9. Zhongtian Li & Jing Jia & Larelle J. Chapple, 2022. "Textual characteristics of corporate sustainability disclosure and corporate sustainability performance: evidence from Australia," Meditari Accountancy Research, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 31(3), pages 786-816, February.
    10. Kim, Pyung & Bae, Hyunhoe, 2022. "Do firms respond differently to the carbon pricing by industrial sector? How and why? A comparison between manufacturing and electricity generation sectors using firm-level panel data in Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    11. Huijue Kelly Duan & Hanxin Hu & Yangin (Ben) Yoon & Miklos Vasarhelyi, 2022. "Increasing the utility of performance audit reports: Using textual analytics tools to improve government reporting," Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(4), pages 201-218, October.
    12. Zhifang Zhou & Tao Zhang & Kang Wen & Huixiang Zeng & Xiaohong Chen, 2018. "Carbon risk, cost of debt financing and the moderation effect of media attention: Evidence from Chinese companies operating in high‐carbon industries," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(8), pages 1131-1144, December.
    13. Ling Jin & Jun-Hyeok Choi & Saerona Kim & Dong-Hoon Yang, 2021. "Government Environmental Pressure and Market Response to Carbon Disclosure: A Study of the Early Chinese ETS Implementation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-18, December.
    14. Assaf Bar‐Hod & Ester Chen & Ilanit Gavious, 2021. "The economic consequences of fair value disclosures: a manifestation of the buried facts doctrine," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 61(S1), pages 1363-1413, April.
    15. Yanqi Sun, 2023. "Can the innovation in sustainability disclosures reflect organisational sustainable development? An integrated reporting perspective from China," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(3), pages 1668-1680, June.
    16. Yasir Shahab & Collins G. Ntim & Yugang Chen & Farid Ullah & Hai‐Xia Li & Zhiwei Ye, 2020. "Chief executive officer attributes, sustainable performance, environmental performance, and environmental reporting: New insights from upper echelons perspective," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(1), pages 1-16, January.
    17. Linda Kusumaning Wedari & Christine Jubb & Amir Moradi‐Motlagh, 2021. "Corporate climate‐related voluntary disclosures: Does potential greenwash exist among Australian high emitters reports?," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(8), pages 3721-3739, December.
    18. D. Scheld & O. Stolper & A. Walter, 2021. "Double Dutch Finally Fixed? A Large-Scale Investigation into the Readability of Mandatory Financial Product Information," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 151-178, June.
    19. Allee, Kristian D. & Do, Chuong & Sterin, Mikhail, 2021. "Product market competition, disclosure framing, and casting in earnings conference calls," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(1).
    20. Asiri, Mohammed & Al-Hadi, Ahmed & Taylor, Grantley & Duong, Lien, 2020. "Is corporate tax avoidance associated with investment efficiency?," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    21. Asay, H. Scott & Libby, Robert & Rennekamp, Kristina, 2018. "Firm performance, reporting goals, and language choices in narrative disclosures," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 380-398.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ibn:eltjnl:v:11:y:2018:i:11:p:122. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Canadian Center of Science and Education (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepflch.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.