Accessible CSR communication

Introduction

What is this course about?

Welcome to this multimodal online course!

This course is about the revision of corporate content on social responsibility in order to make it more accessible for customers.

We will explain you the principles of accessible communication, the concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR), and the revision strategies that you can apply to CSR information to make it more accessible.

What is the structure of this course? 

This course is divided into four parts (visible in the four tabs right below the course title):

• This introduction;
• Theory in the form of texts and videos (estimated time for completion: 3 hours);
• Exercises where you can test how much you have learnt from the theory, or how much you already knew (estimated time for completion: 1.5 hour);
• A case study, where you can put your knowledge and skills into practice with a real-life scenario (estimated time for completion: 1.5 hour).

Is this the right course for you?

You are a perfect match for this course if:

1.  You are studying business, accounting, economics, or another related discipline; and
2.  You have a good knowledge of English.

How can you follow this course?

Some aspects of your participation in this course are obligatory, while others are optional.

Obligatory:

1.  Spend at least six hours between theory, exercises, and case study;
2.  Complete the case study. Please note that all the information that you need to complete the case study is available in the theory section.

Optional:

1.  The theory is available both in textual format and in audiovisual format. For each topic, you can read the theory, watch the video, or do both. Please note that the theoretical sub-sections “Recap”, “From reports to websites” and “The revision process” are available in audiovisual format only;
2.  You can re-read/re-watch the theory as many times as you need, for instance if you have doubts while doing the exercises or the case study;
3.  You can devote more time to one component over the others. For example, you can dedicate the same amount of time to theory, exercises, and case study, or you can focus more on one of these parts over the others (but remember that you need to spend at least six hours on this course!);
4.  You can access this course as many times as you need. You don’t need to look at all the materials in just one session (in fact, we hope that you don’t!);
5.  We assume that you are an independent learner and that you will be able to decide when to finish the course. As a rule of thumb, we recommend that you take part in this course until you are able to answer the questions below.

What will you learn?

At the end of this course, you will be able to answer the following six questions:

1.  What makes a text accessible for the reader?
2.  What is corporate social responsibility (CSR)?
3.  Why is it important to make CSR information accessible?
4.  What are the characteristics of CSR information in corporate reports?
5.  What are the characteristics of CSR information on corporate websites?
6.  What revision strategies can you use to make CSR information in corporate reports more accessible and suitable for publication on corporate websites? 

Two side notes…

1.  As explained above, this module focuses on the revision of already existing content on CSR. However, you can also use the principles of accessible communication described in the theory when you are planning or writing content from scratch.
2.  In order to create the materials in the theoretical section, we used the reports and the scientific publications listed below as sources. Feel free to have a look at them if you want to learn even more!

Sources

• Arfé, B., Mason, L., & Fajardo, I. (2018). Simplifying informational text structure for struggling readers. Reading and Writing, 31, 2191–2210.
• Bakar, A. S., & Ameer, R. (2011). Readability of corporate social responsibility communication in Malaysia. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 18, 50–60.
• Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. (2014). Reading comprehension and vocabulary: Is vocabulary more important for some aspects of comprehension? L’Année Psychologique, 114(4), 647–662.
• Carroll, B. (2008). A history of corporate social responsibility: Concepts and practices. In: A. Crane, D. Matten, A. McWilliams, J. Moon, & D. Siegel (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility (pp. 19–46). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
• Cone Communications. (2015). Cone Communications/Ebiquity global CSR study. https://www.conecomm.com/research-blog/2015-cone-communications-ebiquity-global-csr-study
• Crossley, S. A., Yang, H. S., & McNamara, D. S. (2014). What’s so simple about simplified texts? A computational and psycholinguistic investigation of text comprehension and text processing. Reading in a Foreign Language, 26(1), 92–113.
• Du, S., & Yu, K. (2020). Do corporate social responsibility reports convey value relevant information? Evidence from report readability and tone. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04496-3
• European Commission (2011). A Renewed EU Strategy 2011-14 for Corporate Social Responsibility. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52011DC0681&from=EN
• García‐Sánchez, I. M., & Araújo‐Bernardo, C. A. (2020). What colour is the corporate social responsibility report? Structural visual rhetoric, impression management strategies, and stakeholder engagement. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(2), 1117–1142.
• Helfaya, A., Whittington, M., & Alawattage, C. (2018). Exploring the quality of corporate environmental reporting: Surveying preparers’ and users’ perceptions. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 32(1), 163–193.
• Ihlen, Ø., Bartlett, J. L., & May, S. (2011). Corporate social responsibility and communication. The Handbook of Communication and Corporate Social Responsibility. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 3–22.
• Kim, S., & Ferguson, M. T. (2014). Public expectations of CSR communication: What and how to communicate CSR. Public Relations Journal, 8(3). https://www.bellisario.psu.edu/assets/uploads/2014KIMFERGUSON.pdf
• KPMG. (2016). Carrots & sticks. Global trends in sustainability reporting regulation and policy. https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/pdf/2016/05/carrots-and-sticks-may-2016.pdf
• Linneman, M. (2019). Anticipation of audience during writing. In: E. Lindgren, & K. Sullivan (Eds.) Observing writing: Insights from keystroke logging and handwriting (pp. 326–345). Leiden and Boston: Brill.
• Lonsdale, M. D. S. (2014). The effect of text layout on performance: A comparison between types of questions that require different reading processes. Information Design Journal, 21(3), 279–299.
• Maaß, C., & Rink, I. (2020). Scenarios for easy language translation: How to produce accessible content for users with diverse needs. In: S. Hansen-Schirra, & C. Maaß (Eds.), Easy language research: Text and user perspectives (pp. 41–56). Berlin: Frank & Timme GmbH.
• Martínez, P., & Del Bosque, I. R. (2013). CSR and customer loyalty: The roles of trust, customer identification with the company and satisfaction. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 35, 89–99.
• National Adult Literacy Agency (2009). From air quality to zero emissions: A plain English guide to common environmental terms. https://www.nala.ie/publications/a-plain-english-guide-to-environmental-terms/
• Nilipour, A., De Silva, T. A., & Li, X. (2020). The readability of sustainability reporting in New Zealand over time. Australasian Accounting, Business and Finance Journal, 14(3), 86–107.
• Pimperton, H., & Nation, K. (2010). Suppressing irrelevant information from working memory: Evidence for domain-specific deficits in poor comprehenders. Journal of Memory and Language, 62(4), 380–391.
• Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating shared value: How to reinvent capitalism—and unleash a wave of innovation and growth. Harvard Business Review. http://hbr.org/2011/01/the-big-idea-creatingshared-value
• Safari, M., & Mohaghegh Montazeri, M. (2017). The effect of reducing lexical and syntactic complexity of texts on reading comprehension. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 36(3), 59–83.
• Schriver, K. A. (1992). Teaching writers to anticipate readers’ needs: A classroom-evaluated pedagogy. Written Communication, 9(2), 179–208.
• Schriver, K. A. (2013). What do technical communicators need to know about information design? In: J. Johnson-Eilola, & S. Selber (Eds.), Solving problems in technical communication (pp. 386–427). Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press.
• Smeuninx, N., De Clerck, B., & Aerts, W. (2020). Measuring the readability of sustainability reports: A corpus-based analysis through standard formulae and NLP. International Journal of Business Communication, 57(1), 52–85.
• Unerman, J., & Bennett, M. (2004). Increased stakeholder dialogue and the internet: Towards greater corporate accountability or reinforcing capitalist hegemony? Accounting, Organizations and Society, 29(7), 685–707.
• Wang, Z., Hsieh, T. S., & Sarkis, J. (2018). CSR performance and the readability of CSR reports: Too good to be true? Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25(1), 66–79.
• Wei, L. (2020). Examining corporate communications of environmental responsibility on corporate websites: Main themes, linguistic features, and text reuse. Journal of Promotion Management, 26(7), 1013–1037.

Team and contact information

Dr Alessandra Rossetti (alessandra.rossetti@uantwerpen.be)

Prof Luuk Van Waes (luuk.vanwaes@uantwerpen.be)

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant agreement No 888918.