Global Journal of Management and Business Research, A: Administration and Management, Volume 23 Issue 1

case, the message contained in the documents that constitute the companies' information tool for external third parties is either misleading or concealed, depending on the will of the document's drafter. Just one last consideration: if you think you will find in this work the various meanings attributable, for instance, to body movements (e.g. if a person looks to the right, it means he is telling the truth. If he looks to the left, he is, of course, lying) or to the presence of particular physical features, you will be disappointed. In this set of meditations, you will find the keys to interpreting verbal and non-verbal communication in a general sense and, consequently, without specific reference to particular physical tics and/or gestural behaviour. Speaking then, in particular, of financial statements, it is evident that such considerations are worthless. Speaking of financial statement communication, the focus will be on the document and its ability to provide correct and understandable information. After this brief introduction, we come to the following: why is the chapter entitled "Why talk about communication between us and others and not between me and others"? After all, using the plural majestatis is perhaps excessive, considering that I am not the Pope. I titled it that way because that is how we all see communication. No one or very few think that the opinion regarding the meaning of communication is personal and subjective. Most of us think that what we believe reflects the idea of most people. And here, of course, lies the error. Because if I am aware that I am doing or saying something personal and subjective, I already start from the consideration that others might think differently. But if, on the contrary, I consider that practically everyone shares my thought, it is evident that talking about communication between us and others and not between me and others seems an apt phrase to express the situation. What has been pointed out above may seem unimportant and almost superficial. In fact, on the contrary, a consideration is no foundation whatsoever so that communication between two subjects, legal or physical, is irrelevant and can come efficiently, effectively, clearly and, above all, on a correct basis. One may ask whether what has been stated in the previous lines has anything to do with corporate financial and sustainability communication. The answer is positive. Suppose one starts with the idea that communication is between me and others. In that case, one believes that a person's concepts, opinions, and ideas are correct and that, therefore, the contact they receive may differ from what the person receiving the communication thinks, is, by definition, erroneous, misleading, carried out in bad faith or, even if carried out in good faith, characterised by logical, formal, structural, scientific, technical errors that make correct and complete communication impossible. There is no need to dwell on this to understand that such a position is absurd and meaningless. This is why communication must be between us and others and not between me and others. The starting point must be that the idea being debated or the subject of corporate or other communication may be profoundly different from the opinion of one of the many recipients of that communication. And it is obvious that since communication, especially corporate communication, involves multiple subjects and multiple categories of subjects (consumers, workers, trade unions, financiers and , shareholders, customers, suppliers, etc.), there will certainly be people who believe Virgo to be the basic, correct idea that the company communicates. What must be pointed out is that it is not the opinion of the recipient of the critical communication but the contact itself that is made either by one person to other people or by the company to third parties. The circumstance that at the basis of the communication is a different idea between the one that the recipient reads and believes to be the only correct one and the opinion disseminated by the company or other parties on other occasions has nothing to do with the communication process itself. What is relevant is that the communication has accurate, understandable, and correct values as its object. And this applies both to communication between subjects in general in a community, between different groups, and in the context of corporate communication towards third parties outside the company. On the other hand, it can often be seen that some criticisms of corporate communication stem not from the transmission and data disseminated, but from the preconceived opinion that the person who does not accept the corporate data has in their mind. In this case, there is communication between me and others. My idea is correct against others, including the company, which is incorrect. If one starts from this assumption, it is evident how communication can never be said to be correct and perfect, even though in reality it can only be so and only the starting thought of the recipient of the communication itself, which starts from an incorrect or in any case subjective and personal assumption about a certain issue, can be incorrect. 2) Non-Communication Identifies Perfect Communication but ..... When a subject must communicate with other issues or groups of topics, or when a company must communicate with third parties outside the company, there is one method that unequivocally identifies excellent communication. Perfect communication is non- communication. The absence of communication, for example, by a company of data of a financial, income, equity or sustainability-related nature, or in general related to the company's performance, is not poor 31 Global Journal of Management and Business Research Volume XXIII Issue I Version I Year 2023 ( ) A © 2023 Global Journals Communicating through Non-Communication or Over-Communication