Corporate disclosures constitute one of the most critical communication channels between firms and their stakeholders. Over the past several decades, scholars in accounting, finance, and strategic management have increasingly recognized that disclosure quality is not determined solely by the quantity of information released, but also by how that information is written, structured, and communicated. Readability, defined as the ease with which narrative disclosures can be understood by reasonably informed users, has emerged as a central construct in evaluating disclosure effectiveness. At the same time, concerns about deliberate or unintentional obfuscation—where complex language, excessive length, or ambiguous tone reduces clarity—have raised fundamental questions about managerial incentives, governance mechanisms, and organizational strategy. This study develops a comprehensive, theory-driven analysis of the relationship between readability, obfuscation, and balanced communication strategies in corporate reporting. Drawing strictly on established literature in disclosure readability, corporate governance, financial reporting, and strategic communication, the article synthesizes insights from accounting, finance, and organizational theory to propose an integrative framework explaining why firms vary in disclosure readability and how these choices affect capital market outcomes, stakeholder trust, and long-term strategic positioning. Using a qualitative, theory-expanding methodological approach grounded in prior empirical findings, this research elaborates on the mechanisms through which socially responsible behavior, risk incentives, governance structures, and market pressures jointly shape disclosure practices. The findings suggest that neither extreme transparency nor deliberate opacity alone maximizes organizational value; rather, firms that adopt a balanced disclosure strategy—one that aligns readability with strategic intent and stakeholder expectations—are more likely to achieve sustainable legitimacy and reduced information asymmetry. The article contributes to the literature by reconciling competing perspectives on readability as either a signal of quality or a managerial tool for impression management, and by outlining a future research agenda that integrates advances in narrative analysis and multimodal disclosure evaluation.

Communication, Organizational strategy, Information, Readability

Ahmed, K., and Courtis, J.K. (1999), “Associations between corporate characteristics and disclosure levels in annual reports: A meta-analysis”, The British Accounting Review, Vol. 31, pp. 35–61.

Akhtaruddin, M. (2005), “Corporate mandatory disclosure practices in Bangladesh”, The International Journal of Accounting, Vol. 40, pp. 399–422.

Aksu, M., and Kosedag, A. (2006), “Transparency and disclosure scores and their determinants in the Istanbul Stock Exchange”, Corporate Governance: An International Review, Vol. 14, pp. 277–296.

Al-Hadi, A., Hasan, M.M., Taylor, G., Hossain, M., and Richardson, G. (2017), “Market risk disclosures and investment efficiency: International evidence from the Gulf Cooperation Council financial firms”, Journal of International Financial Management & Accounting, Vol. 28, pp. 349–393.

Almeida, H., and Campello, M. (2007), “Financial constraints, asset tangibility, and corporate investment”, The Review of Financial Studies, Vol. 20, pp. 1429–1460.

Altman, E.I. (1968), “Financial ratios, discriminant analysis and the prediction of corporate bankruptcy”, The Journal of Finance, Vol. 23, pp. 589–609.

Amba, S.M. (2014), “Corporate governance and firms’ financial performance”, Journal of Academic and Business Ethics, Vol. 8, pp. 1–11.

Abdullah, S.N. (2006), “Board structure and ownership in Malaysia: The case of distressed listed companies”, Corporate Governance, Vol. 6, pp. 582–594.

Abdul-Qadir, A.B., and Kwanbo, M.L. (2012), “Corporate governance and financial performance of banks in the post-consolidation era in Nigeria”, International Journal of Social Sciences and Humanity Studies, Vol. 4, pp. 27–36.

Ben-Amar, W., and Belgacem, I. (2018), “Do socially responsible firms provide more readable disclosures in annual reports?”, Corporate Social Responsibility & Environmental Management, Vol. 25, No. 5, pp. 1009–1018.

Bloomfield, R. (2008), “Discussion of ‘annual report readability, current earnings, and earnings persistence’”, Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol. 45, Nos. 2/3, pp. 248–252.

Chakrabarty, B., Seetharaman, A., Swanson, Z., and Wang, X.F. (2018), “Management risk incentives and the readability of corporate disclosures”, Financial Management, Vol. 47, No. 3, pp. 583–616.

Courtis, J.K. (2004), “Corporate report obfuscation: artefact or phenomenon?”, The British Accounting Review, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp. 291–312.

Ertugrul, M., Lei, J., Qiu, J., and Wan, C. (2017), “Annual report readability, tone ambiguity, and the cost of borrowing”, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 52, No. 2, pp. 811–836.

Gosselin, A.-M., Le Maux, J., and Smaili, N. (2021), “Readability of accounting disclosures: a comprehensive review and research agenda”, Accounting Perspectives, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 543–581.

Kim, C.F., Wang, K., and Zhang, L. (2019), “Readability of 10-K reports and stock price crash risk”, Contemporary Accounting Research, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 1184–1216.

Lehavy, R., Li, F., and Merkley, K. (2011), “The effect of annual report readability on analyst following and the properties of their earnings forecasts”, The Accounting Review, Vol. 86, No. 3, pp. 1087–1115.

Tailor, P., and Kale, A. (2025), “Multimodal sentiment analysis of earnings calls and SEC filings: A deep learning approach to financial disclosures”, Utilitas Mathematica, Vol. 122, pp. 3163–3168.