Culture and Communication in Corporate Sustainability Reporting: A Comparative Discourse Analysis of Goldwind and Vestas

Abstract This article investigates how two wind-energy manufacturers, Goldwind and Vestas, construct the credibility of sustainability claims for geographically dispersed audiences. Rather than treating Chinese and Danish reporting as predetermined instances of high- and low-context cultures, the study adopts a qualitative comparative case-study design and close discourse analysis of their publicly released 2024 disclosures. Three parallel topics—climate action, supply-chain labor and occupational safety—organize an evidence-led reading of policy references, numerical claims, assigned responsibilities, acknowledgement of adverse outcomes and mechanisms of accountability. The analysis identifies three coexisting credibility resources: value alignment, evidential specification and procedural accountability. Goldwind combines collective-purpose language with metrics, supplier monitoring and explicit workplace-safety targets; Vestas embeds quantified performance and grievance procedures within a wider narrative of learning, partnership and safety culture. Critically, these configurations cannot be attributed to national culture alone: reporting format, regulatory obligations, genre and corporate circumstances provide alternative explanations. The paper contributes a bounded framework for comparative corporate sustainability discourse and argues that credible international communication depends on how narrative orientation, measurable evidence and organizational accountability are articulated together.