Exploring the Move Structure and Interdiscursive Strategies in Leader Messages in Corporate Social Responsibility Reports of Chinese and U.S. Corporations
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online October, 2025
Exploring the Move Structure and Interdiscursive Strategies in Leader Messages in Corporate Social Responsibility Reports of Chinese and U.S. Corporations
Leader messages play a crucial role in establishing and maintaining mutually beneficial relationships between globalized corporations and their diverse stakeholders. By constructing two corpora, each containing 45 texts of leader messages from CSR (corporate social responsibility) reports of corporations operating in China and the United States that appeared on the 2021 Fortune Global 500 list, this study explored the move structure and interdiscursive strategies employed in the messages. The study identified a rhetorical structure consisting of seven moves and eleven steps shared by both corpora. Analysis reveals that interdiscursivity is a prevalent feature of leader messages in both corpora. Specifically, discourses of promotion, strategic management, and financial accounting are favored by Chinese corporations, while evaluative and interpersonal discourses are preferred by the U.S. corporations. The findings enhance our understanding of how professionals from different cultural contexts adopt appropriate move structures and interdiscursive strategies to craft leader messages for effective CSR communication.
BhatiaA. (2012). The corporate social responsibility report: The hybridization of a “confused” genre (2007–2011). IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 55(3), 221–238. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2012.2205732
2.
BhatiaA. (2013). International genre, local flavour: Analysis of PetroChina’s Corporate and Social Responsibility Report. Revista Signos, 46(83), 307–331. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-09342013000300002
3.
BhatiaV. K. (2008). Towards critical genre analysis. In BhatiaV. K.FlowerdewJ.JonesR. H. (Eds.), Advances in discourse studies (pp. 166–177). Routledge.
BhatiaV. K. (2014). Worlds of written discourse: A genre-based view. Bloomsbury Academic.
6.
BhatiaV. K. (2017). Critical genre analysis: Investigating interdiscursive performance in professional practice. Routledge.
7.
BondiM.YuD. (2018). The generic structure of CSR reports: Dynamicity, multimodality, complexity and recursivity. In GarzoneG. E.GiordanoW. (Eds.), Discourse, communication and the enterprise: Where business meets discourse (pp. 176–205). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
8.
ConawayR. N.WardropeW. J. (2010). Do their words really matter? Thematic analysis of U.S. and Latin American CEO letters. Journal of Business communication, 47(2), 141–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021943610364523
9.
CoronaI. (2011). Confidentiality at risk: The interdiscursive construction of International Commercial Arbitration. Discourse & Communication, 5(4), 355–374. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481311418097
10.
CotosE. (2019). Articulating societal benefits in grant proposals: Move analysis of Broader Impacts. English for Specific Purposes, 54, 15–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2018.11.002
11.
DawkinsC.NgunjiriF. W. (2008). Corporate social responsibility reporting in South Africa: A descriptive and comparative analysis. Journal of Business Communication, 45(3), 286–307. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021943608317111
12.
DengL.ChengY.GaoX. (2024). Promotional strategies in English and Chinese research article introduction and discussion/conclusion sections: A cross-cultural study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 68, Article 101344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2024.101344
13.
DengL.LaghariT.GaoX. (2021). A genre-based exploration of intertextuality and interdiscursivity in advertorial discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 62, 30–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2020.11.003
14.
DengL.ZhouY. (2020). An intertextual and interdiscursive analysis of pragmatic identity construction in Chinese and foreign CSR reports. Jinan Journal (Philosophy and Social Sciences), 42(4), 59–67.
15.
ErvitsI. (2021). CSR reporting by Chinese and Western MNEs: Patterns combining formal homogenization and substantive differences. International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, 6(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40991-021-00060-y
16.
FaircloughN. (1992). Discourse and social change. Polity Press.
17.
FaircloughN. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. Routledge.
18.
FaircloughN. (2006). Language and globalization. Routledge.
19.
FoucaultM. (1981). The archeology of knowledge. Pantheon Books.
20.
HabermasJ. (1984). The theory of communicative action (vol. 1): Reason and the rationalization of society. Beacon Press.
21.
HuG.CaoF. (2011). Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English- and Chinese-medium journals. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(11), 2795–2809. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.04.007
22.
HuangY.RoseK. (2018). You, our shareholders: metadiscourse in CEO letters from Chinese and Western banks. Text & Talk, 38(2), 167–190. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2017-0041
23.
JakobsonR. (1980). The framework of language. Michigan Studies in the Humanities.
24.
KhanM.SulaimanR. B. (2021). On the linkage between CEOs’ statements and CSR reporting: An analysis of visuals and verbal texts. Corporate Governance, 21(3), 515–535. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-06-2020-0240
25.
KoskelaM. (2013). Same, same, but different: Intertextual and interdiscursive features of communication strategy texts. Discourse & Communication, 7(4), 389–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481313498655
26.
KristevaJ. (1980). Word, dialogue and novel. In RoudiezL. S. (Ed.), Desire in language: A semiotic approach to literature and art (pp. 64–91). Colombia University Press.
27.
LeeW. W. L. (2020). Impression management through hedging and boosting: A cross-cultural investigation of the messages of U.S. and Chinese corporate leaders. Lingua, 242, Article 102872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2020.102872
28.
LeeW. W. L. (2021). Emotion in business communication: A comparative study of attitude markers in the discourse of U.S. and mainland Chinese corporations. Discourse & Communication, 15(6), 629–649. https://doi.org/10.1177/17504813211026541
29.
LewinB. A.FineJ.YoungL. (2001). Expository discourse: A genre-based approach to social research text. Continuum.
30.
LiuH.LiuJ.ChengP. (2019). Communication through discourse: A contrastive genre analysis of the CEO statements between American and Chinese CSR annual reports. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 8(5), 96–105. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.8n.5p.96
31.
LuzónM. J. (2017). Connecting genres and languages in online scholarly communication: An analysis of research group blogs. Written Communication, 34(4), 441–471. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088317726298
32.
MaignanI.RalstonD. A. (2002). Corporate social responsibility in Europe and the U.S.: Insights from businesses’ self-presentations. Journal of International Business Studies, 33(3), 497–514. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8491028
33.
MarquisC.QianC. (2014). Corporate social responsibility reporting in China: Symbol or substance?Organization Science, 25(1), 127–148. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2013.0837
34.
MartínP.PérezI. K. L. (2014). Convincing peers of the value of one’s research: A genre analysis of rhetorical promotion in academic texts. English for Specific Purposes, 34, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2013.09.002
35.
McWilliamsA.SiegelD. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective?Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117–127. https://doi.org/10.2307/259398
MorenoA. I.SwalesJ. M. (2018). Strengthening move analysis methodology towards bridging the function-form gap. English for Specific Purposes, 50, 40–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2017.11.006
38.
NegrettiR.KhuderB. (2024). Case studies. In KesslerM.PolioC. (Eds.), Conducting genre-based research in applied linguistics: A methodological guide (pp.13–34). Routledge.
39.
NgaiC. S. B.SinghR. G. (2017). Move structure and communication style of leaders’ messages in corporate discourse: A cross-cultural perspective. Discourse & Communication, 11 (3), 276–295. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481317697860
40.
NgaiC. S. B.SinghR. G.KwanB. S. C. (2020). A comparative study of the linguistic manifestations of intertextuality in corporate leaders’ messages of global corporations in the US and China. English for Specific Purposes, 60, 65–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2020.05.002
41.
RajandranK. (2018). Coercive, mimetic and normative: Interdiscursivity in Malaysian CSR reports. Discourse & Communication, 12(4), 424–444. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481318757779
42.
RajandranK.TaibF. (2014). The representation of CSR in Malaysian CEO statements: A critical discourse analysis. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 19(3), 303–317. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-02-2013-0011
43.
RenC.LuX. (2021). A multi-dimensional analysis of the Management’s Discussion and Analysis narratives in Chinese and American corporate annual reports. English for Specific Purposes, 62, 84–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2020.12.004
44.
SamrajB. (2014). 14. Move structure. In SchneiderK.BarronA. (Eds.), Pragmatics of discourse (pp. 385–406). De Gruyter Mouton.
45.
SunY.JiangJ. (2014). Metaphor use in Chinese and US corporate mission statements: A cognitive sociolinguistic analysis. English for Specific Purposes, 33, 4–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2013.07.005
46.
SwalesJ. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press.
Van HerckR.DecockS.FastrichB. (2022). A unique blend of interpersonal and transactional strategies in English email responses to customer complaints in a B2C setting: A move analysis. English for Specific Purposes, 65, 30–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2021.08.001
49.
VogelD. (1992). The globalization of business ethics: Why America remains distinctive. California Management Review, 35(1), 30–49. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166711
50.
WangW.YangC. (2015). Claiming centrality as promotion in applied linguistics research article introductions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20, 162–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.05.002
51.
WoodD. J. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16(4), 691–718. https://doi.org/10.2307/258977
52.
YuD. (2022). Cross-cultural genre analysis: Investigating Chinese, Italian and English CSR reports. Routledge.
53.
YuD. (2023). A cross-cultural genre analysis of leadership statements in Italian and American University sustainability reports. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 66(1), 26–47. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2022.3228024
54.
YuD.BondiM. (2017). The generic structure of CSR reports in Italian, Chinese, and English: A corpus-based analysis. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 60(3), 273–291. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2017.2702040
55.
YuD.BondiM. (2019). A genre-based analysis of forward-looking statements in corporate social responsibility reports. Written Communication, 36(3), 379–409. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088319841612
56.
ZhangY.WangP.KwonJ. (2021). CSR in China: Does being close to the central or local government matter?Sustainability, 13(16), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13168770
57.
ZornT. (2001). Talking heads: The CEOs as spokesperson. In KitchenP. J.SchultzD. E. (Eds.), Raising the corporate umbrella: Corporate communication in the 21st century (pp. 23–42). Palgrave.
