ESP Across Cultures 21

Transparency in professional settings refers to the degree of openness in disclosing information to key stakeholders as well as the public at large (Ball 2009). However, depending on the communicative context, transparency can take on more nuanced meanings: organizational transparency based on a reputation as a transparent entity, as well as communicative transparency achieved by producing communications that are seen as both efficient and reliable (Rawlins 2008). When both of these aspects of transparency are perceived, this contributes to establishing trust, which is then manifested in the belief that an organization will act in its stakeholders’ best interests and, by implication, is honest and ethical (Ball 2009). Thus, communicating an image of transparency remains a critical objective (Christensen and Cheney 2015), particularly in light of recurring scandals and growing scrutiny on the part of informed citizens whose access to information from both traditional and digital sources is ever-expanding. In corporate settings, transparency is typically associated with financial disclosure, a well-consolidated practice comprising both mandatory (e.g. annual reports) and voluntary (e.g. earnings calls) genres that are used to comply with reporting requirements but also to proactively engage with stakeholders. In recent years, non-financial disclosure relating to environmental and social issues has become increasingly important and, like financial disclosure, is now often mandated by regulatory directives (Jackson et al. 2020). Non-financial disclosure genres include reports that may take on various names such as Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) reports, sustainability reports, Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) reports, and social impact reports. Moreover, thanks to an increasing array of digital affordances, companies are also leveraging their own web-based communications and various social media platforms (e.g. X (formerly Twitter), Instagram, Facebook) to boost perceptions of transparency among a wider audience. In institutional settings (e.g. media organizations, governmental authorities, specialized agencies), communicating transparency during the disclosure of information is also an ongoing concern in an effort to establish trustful relationships with citizens (Chilton 2004). Examples of institutional genres in which transparency is expected are written reports available from media and governmental sources, as well as verbal communications, such as televised interviews involving journalists and diplomats/international operators. In the current context of growing public suspicion and distrust, organizations have been under mounting pressure to commit to disclosing information in a way that is perceived as transparent and trustworthy. Language clearly plays a vital role in communicating transparently and establishing trust (Salvi and Turnbull 2017). For organizations operating in international/intercultural contexts, regardless of country of origin, it is now common to find disclosure-oriented communications in English posted on publicly accessible Internet sources (Jeanjean et al. 2010; Ki and Chung 2011). This reflects not only the need to overcome barriers with a shared code of communication among speakers of different languages and cultures (Kecskes 2004), but also to promote an image of transparency to a global and multicultural audience (Crowley et al. 2015). However, we know that aspects of national culture can also influence how people communicate in intercultural contexts (cf. Hall 1976; Gudykunst 2004; Hofstede 1997). Previous research from a cross-cultural perspective has highlighted different approaches and communicative styles in contrastive analyses of various genres used in business contexts. Some examples are: annual reports (Haugaard and Laursen 2021), CSR reports (Yu and Bondi 2017), investor relations communications policy (Koskela and Crawford Camiciottoli 2020), earnings conference calls (Crawford Camiciottoli 2014), corporate websites (Cucchi 2019), Facebook (Bianchi and Manca 2023), and Instagram (Mele et al.2021). In the area of institutional discourse, studies have investigated cross-cultural differences in genres including news discourse (Fruttaldo and Venuti 2017), parliamentary discourse (Ilie 2013), and face-to-face and video-mediated interviews between diplomats and journalists using English as a lingua franca (Facchinetti 2023). Expanding on the above discussion, the aim of this Special Issue is to offer insights into how transparency is crafted and promoted in corporate and institutional communication by tackling some key questions: how is transparency encoded through lexical, discursive, pragmatic, and multimodal features? Which new disclosure genres are emerging and how are their channels of distribution changing as a result of advances in digital technology? Are there trends within specific sectors of communication? Are there trends linked to different national cultures? What is the role of English in conveying transparency in cross-cultural or intercultural contexts? To what extent do organizations go beyond normative requirements to further enhance an image of transparency? How can transparency be hindered?