Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to examine risk disclosures by UK companies within their annual reports. Tests are performed to measure the level of the readability of the risk disclosures and to assess whether directors are deliberately obscuring bad risk news. Design/methodology/approach - The paper draws upon methodologies developed in prior empirical studies of annual report readability. Thus it uses the Flesch Reading Ease formula to measure the readability of the risk disclosures and coefficients of variation are used to measure obfuscation. A content analysis approach is adopted to identify risk disclosures. Findings - The paper finds that the mean Flesch reading ease ratings for the sample companies are all below 50 indicating that the level of readability of the risk disclosures is difficult or very difficult and this supports prior research examining the readability of sample passages in annual reports. No evidence is found to suggest that directors are deliberately obfuscating or concealing bad risk news through their writing style. Research limitations/implications - The paper also finds that the Flesch reading ease ratings measure the readability, not the understandability, of disclosures and whilst actions can be taken to minimise problems associated with reliability when performing content analysis they cannot be wholly eliminated. Practical implications - The paper shows that there have been calls for improved risk disclosures to enable stakeholders to better understand a company's risk position. Requiring directors to issue extra risk information will not, however, lead to enhanced risk communication unless the readability of the risk disclosures is also improved. Originality/value - In this paper it is shown that there have been no prior studies that focus upon testing for readability and obfuscation in risk disclosures. It is important that transparent risk information is provided to the marketplace and therefore this study is valuable in its examination of the clarity of communication of published risk information.
[1]
J. Courtis.
Readability of annual reports: Western versus Asian evidence
,
1995
.
[2]
K. Peasnell,et al.
Financial Reporting of Risk: Proposals for a Statement of Business Risk
,
1997
.
[3]
Nathan Lael Joseph,et al.
A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR CORPORATE RISK DISCLOSURE EMERGING FROM THE AGENDA FOR CORPORATE GOVERNANCE REFORM
,
2000
.
[4]
Richard Taffler,et al.
Readability and Understandability: Different Measures of the Textual Complexity of Accounting Narrative
,
1992
.
[5]
H. Eugene Baker,et al.
Relationship Between Annual Report Readability and Corporate Financial Performance
,
1992
.
[6]
J. Courtis,et al.
An Investigation into Annual Report Readability and Corporate Risk-Return Relationships
,
1986
.
[7]
J. Courtis,et al.
Corporate report obfuscation: artefact or phenomenon?
,
2004,
The British Accounting Review.
[8]
M. J. Jones,et al.
A Longitudinal Study of the Readability of the Chairman's Narratives in the Corporate Reports of a UK Company
,
1988
.
[9]
M. Milne,et al.
Some determinants of social and environmental disclosures in New Zealand companies
,
1996
.
[10]
Richard Taffler,et al.
THE INCREMENTAL EFFECT OF NARRATIVE ACCOUNTING INFORMATION IN CORPORATE ANNUAL REPORTS
,
1995
.
[11]
R. Flesch.
A new readability yardstick.
,
1948,
The Journal of applied psychology.
[12]
Philip J. Shrives,et al.
Examining risk reporting in UK public companies
,
2005
.
[13]
Philip J. Shrives,et al.
Transparency and the disclosure of risk information in the banking sector
,
2005
.
[14]
Robert W. Ingram,et al.
Narrative disclosures in annual reports
,
1983
.
[15]
J. Courtis.
Annual report readability variability: tests of the obfuscation hypothesis
,
1998
.
[16]
Robert G. Insley,et al.
Performance and Readability: A Comparison of Annual Reports of Profitable and Unprofitable Corporations
,
1993
.