Towards Empowering Consumers through Sentence-level Readability Scoring in German ESG Reports
Organizations: University of Augsburg, Germany · German Center for Addiction Research in Childhood and Adolescence (DZSKJ), University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany
Abstract
With the ever-growing urgency of sustainability in the economy and society, and the massive stream of information that comes with it, consumers need reliable access to that information. To address this need, companies began publishing so called Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) reports, both voluntarily and forced by law. To serve the public, these reports must be addressed not only to financial experts but also to non-expert audiences. But are they written clearly enough? In this work, we extend an existing sentence-level dataset of German ESG reports with crowdsourced readability annotations. We find that, in general, native speakers perceive sentences in ESG reports as easy to read, but also that readability is subjective. We apply various readability scoring methods and evaluate them regarding their prediction error and correlation with human rankings. Our analysis shows that, while LLM prompting has potential for distinguishing clear from hard-to-read sentences, a small finetuned transformer predicts human readability with the lowest error. Averaging predictions of multiple models can slightly improve the performance at the cost of slower inference.
Figures & tables
| Train | Dev | Eval | |
| # Sentences | 960 | 267 | 407 |
| Ø Words / sentence | 16.92 | 17.50 | 17.32 |
| Ø Syllables / word | 2.28 | 2.32 | 2.28 |
| Inter-Annotator Agreement | |||
| 3 agree | 86.8% | 72.3% | 87.7% |
| Mode agreement | 70.3% | 60.4% | 70.1% |
| Type | Model | MSE ( ) | MAE ( ) | Kendall ( ) | Ø Time per Sentence ( ) | # Params |
| Whitebox | Sentence length baseline | s | 1 | |||
| Readability formulae baseline | 0.0863 | 0.0018s | 5 | |||
| Syntactic features (ours) | 0.0389 | 0.1502 | s | 0.7M | ||
| XLM-RoBERTa | base | 0.0295 | 0.1114 | 0.2461 | 0.0035s | 278M |
| large | NA | 550M | ||||
| LLMs | Qwen 3 4B Instruct 2507 | 0.1119 | 0.2469 | 0.2822 | 0.0503s | 4,000M |
| Train | Dev | Eval | |
| Sentence length baseline | 2.523 | 2.535 | 2.531 |
| Readability formulae baseline | 3.527 | 3.551 | 3.528 |
| Syntactic features | 3.608 | 3.555 | 3.596 |
| XLM-RoBERTa base | 3.790 | 3.933 | 3.920 |
| Qwen 3 | 3.077 | 3.075 | 3.037 |
| Human Annotation | 3.695 | 3.431 | 3.709 |
| Ablated Feature | MSE | MAE | Kendall |
| Sentence Depth | |||
| Dependency Dist. | |||
| Sentence Root | |||
| Is Passive | |||
| Has Subordination | |||
| Bigrams |
Appendix figures & tables1 asset
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Fine-Tuning
Fine-tuning adapts pretrained models to new tasks, domains, and behaviors by updating some or all of their parameters.
See all 250 papers