Writing and readability: what we look for in a Report Review

Most annual reports could be clearer. Very few teams deliberately write badly — but very few have deliberately written well either.

Writing and readability is the second of eight categories in our Report Review communication effectiveness framework. We look at how the report reads — not what it says, but how it says it.

It's the area where small, specific changes deliver the biggest gains.

What we mean by writing and readability

Plain language doesn't mean simple language. It doesn't strip nuance out of difficult subjects. The PLAIN and ISO definition is precise: clear wording, clear structure and clear design, so the intended audience can do three things.

The plain language test from ISO 24495-1, the international standard for plain language.

For annual reports, this means more than short sentences. It means choosing concrete language over corporate filler, prioritising the reader over the approver, and making technical content accessible where the audience requires it. (Our piece on why we joined PLAIN covers the standard in detail.)

How a writing and readability assessment creates value

Writing quality is the most common topic of internal debate during report production. Everyone has an opinion. Few opinions come with evidence. That's where the Review delivers.

The Review doesn't just tell you the writing could be clearer. It tells you which sentences, which sections and which patterns are costing the report most.

Why writing in annual reports drifts away from plain language

Annual reports tend to develop their own dialect. A few things drive it:

• the approval cycle adds caution at every round — specific becomes general, general becomes vague
• drafters preserve phrasing from previous years rather than rewriting for this year
• legal review smooths anything a reader could mistake for a commitment
• teams default to "how annual reports sound" instead of writing for a defined audience
• filler words signal effort without adding meaning — "comprehensive", "robust", "ongoing", "strategic".

Nobody plans this. But the cumulative effect is writing that's harder to read than it needs to be — and that costs the report. (We trace the production dynamics that drive these patterns in Why your annual report has an audience problem.)

What we look for

When we assess writing and readability in a Report Review, we read the document closely, sample sections across the report, and run it through readability scoring against the likely audience.

We're looking at things like:

• average sentence length and how widely sentences vary in length
• active versus passive construction, especially in narrative sections
• concrete language versus abstract corporate filler
• acronym discipline — defined on first use, used consistently, not overloaded
• whether technical content has been made accessible where the audience requires it
• readability scoring against the report's likely audience.

Reports that score well share a recognisable quality: the writing does work on every line. Reports that score poorly fill space without conveying much. (Your annual report is compliant. But is it effective? walks through the most common writing failures we see.)

What this looks like in practice

Both sentences passed an approval cycle. Only one earns its place.

The first sentence runs 21 words and says almost nothing. The second runs 15 words and says exactly what happened. The difference isn't style — it's whether the writing does any work.

A self-assessment you can run

Pick a random page of your most recent annual report. Then try these four tests.

Most teams are surprised by what one page reveals.

This isn't a full assessment. But it shows you where the writing is doing work and where it isn't — and the research on what investors actually want from your annual report shows why those gaps matter.

Plain language is now an international standard

ISO 24495-1, Plain language — Part 1: Governing principles and guidelines, was published in 2023. Experts from 25 countries representing 19 languages built it. It sets out four principles — relevant, findable, understandable, usable — that apply to any document, including annual reports.

Plain English is no longer a stylistic preference. It's a recognised standard with research, governance and global consensus behind it. That changes what "effective" looks like for corporate reporting.

WorkWords Content is a member of the Plain Language Association International (PLAIN), the global peak body that helped shape the standard. We apply these principles when we review and write annual reports.

What the Review covers — and what it doesn't

A Report Review assesses the writing. It doesn't rewrite it.

You receive a graded score for writing and readability, before-and-after examples drawn from your report, and prioritised recommendations the production team can act on.

Our annual report writing and production service handles implementation separately. The broader case for an independent review sits in Why we created Report Review.