5.3.1 Reports and evaluations

Purpose and context of reports and evaluations

In professional and institutional settings in German, reports and evaluations are central tools for documenting facts, assessing situations, and justifying decisions. They appear in many contexts: company reports, project reports, expert evaluations, inspection reports, performance appraisals, and internal assessments for management or authorities.

At C1 level, you are expected to understand and produce texts that are clear, well structured, and appropriate to the institutional context. This includes choosing the right degree of formality, distinguishing between factual description and evaluation, and supporting your assessments with traceable criteria.

Typical types of reports and evaluations

In German, several text types fall under “Berichte und Gutachten.” Each has its own purpose and typical language.

Common institutional report types include:

The key difference is the degree of formal binding. A “Gutachten” or official “Stellungnahme” often has legal or institutional consequences. A “Bericht” is mainly descriptive, while an “Evaluationsbericht” combines description with systematic assessment.

Communicative goals and reader expectations

Professional reports and evaluations in German pursue several goals at once.

First, they document facts in a verifiable way. The reader expects clear information about what happened, which data was used, which methods were applied, and what the current state is. Vague formulations without sources or time references weaken credibility.

Second, they justify conclusions and recommendations. Evaluations are not only about “good” or “bad.” They must show why an outcome is assessed in a certain way, based on transparent criteria, benchmarks, or standards.

Third, they support decisions. Typical readers are managers, committees, authorities, or clients. They often read selectively, so you must structure the text so that main results and recommendations are easy to find, while details remain accessible in later sections or appendices.

Finally, reports and evaluations should be as objective as possible in tone. Personal emotions and subjective impressions are minimized or clearly marked as opinions. Passive voice, impersonal constructions, and cautious formulations help to retain neutrality.

Macro structure of professional reports

Reports usually follow a clear macro structure. The exact headings vary, but several elements are typical in German institutional practice.

Typical structure of a “Bericht”:

Evaluations and expert reports often place more emphasis on methodology and criteria, since the validity of the assessment depends on them.

In a formal German context, headings are often short and noun-based, for example “Hintergrund,” “Auftrag,” “Zielsetzung,” “Rahmenbedingungen,” “Methodik,” “Ergebnisse,” “Fazit,” “Empfehlungen.”

Language for objectivity and neutrality

Professional reports and evaluations aim for a neutral, fact-oriented style. Certain linguistic strategies help you to achieve this in German.

First, use precise time references and sources. Instead of “kürzlich,” specify “im Zeitraum Januar bis Juni 2025.” Instead of “viele Mitarbeiter,” specify “37 % der befragten Mitarbeiter.”

Second, reduce subjectivity and emotional coloring. Words like “schrecklich,” “fantastisch,” or “riesig” appear rarely in formal reports. Instead, use neutral or measured adjectives and adverbs.

Useful neutral adjectives and adverbs:

Third, prefer impersonal and passive constructions to create distance from the author.

Examples:

“Wir haben festgestellt, dass …” becomes “Es wurde festgestellt, dass …” or “Die Untersuchung ergab, dass …”

“Wir haben 200 Personen befragt.” becomes “Es wurden 200 Personen befragt.” or “Insgesamt wurden 200 Personen befragt.”

Fourth, when you express evaluation, frame it as an assessment based on criteria, not as a personal opinion.

For instance:

“Dieses Ergebnis ist schlecht.” is too blunt and subjective without context. More appropriate:

“Das Ergebnis ist im Vergleich zu den Vorjahren deutlich schwächer und bleibt deutlich hinter dem definierten Zielwert zurück.”

or

“Unter Berücksichtigung der vereinbarten Zielgrößen ist das Ergebnis als unzureichend zu bewerten.”

Structuring facts and arguments clearly

A strong report structures both data and reasoning. In German institutional practice, signposting expressions guide the reader through your logic.

Useful structuring phrases:

For longer reports, internal summaries at the end of a section help orient the reader. Phrases like “Insgesamt lässt sich sagen, dass …” or “In der Summe deuten die Ergebnisse darauf hin, dass …” close the section and prepare the next one.

Descriptive vs evaluative passages

Reports and evaluations alternate between descriptive and evaluative parts. Being able to distinguish and signal these functions is crucial in German institutional writing.

Descriptive passages answer “What is?” They present facts, processes, and data without judging. Typical features:

Use of present tense for stable facts, possibly past tenses for procedures.

Frequent use of passive constructions.

Many details about time, place, quantities.

Verbs of description such as “darstellen,” “beschreiben,” “aufzeigen,” “abbilden,” “enthalten.”

Example:

“Das Projektteam besteht aus fünf Mitarbeitenden aus den Bereichen Marketing und IT. Die Projektleitung liegt seit Januar 2025 bei Frau X. Im Betrachtungszeitraum wurden insgesamt drei Workshops durchgeführt.”

Evaluative passages answer “How good is it?” “What does it mean?” “What should we do?” They include judgments and recommendations but still need careful, cautious language.

Typical elements:

Adjectives and adverbs of evaluation: “unzureichend,” “hervorragend,” “verbesserungsbedürftig,” “effektiv,” “effizient.”

Verbs of evaluation: “bewerten,” “einschätzen,” “beurteilen,” “kritisch sehen,” “zu würdigen wissen.”

Reference to criteria or benchmarks: “gemessen an …,” “unter Berücksichtigung von …,” “im Vergleich zu ….”

Examples:

“Gemessen an den ursprünglichen Projektzielen sind die bisherigen Fortschritte als zufriedenstellend zu bewerten.”

“Die hohe Fluktuation im Projektteam ist kritisch zu sehen, da sie zu Verzögerungen und Wissensverlust geführt hat.”

“Im Vergleich zum Branchenstandard schneidet der Service insgesamt unterdurchschnittlich ab.”

Hedging and cautious formulations

In expert evaluations, absolute statements are risky. German evaluations often employ “hedging,” which softens claims and signals awareness of limits.

Typical hedging devices:

Modal verbs: “kann,” “könnte,” “dürfte,” “sollte.”

Verbs of appearance and probability: “scheinen,” “deuten darauf hin,” “lassen vermuten,” “sprechen dafür, dass …”

Adverbs of probability and restriction: “möglicherweise,” “tendenziell,” “weitgehend,” “zum Teil,” “grundsätzlich,” “unter Umständen.”

Examples:

“Die Ergebnisse deuten darauf hin, dass die Maßnahme zu einer Verbesserung der Zufriedenheit geführt hat.”

“Es kann nicht ausgeschlossen werden, dass saisonale Effekte die Zahlen beeinflusst haben.”

“Die verfügbaren Daten lassen vermuten, dass die Einführung des neuen Systems insgesamt positiv verlaufen ist.”

“Diese Einschätzung beruht im Wesentlichen auf den Rückmeldungen der befragten Mitarbeitenden.”

Standard formulas for conclusions and recommendations

The conclusion section of a German report usually separates overall findings, consequences, and concrete recommendations. Certain recurring phrases are useful.

Typical conclusion formulas:

“Zusammenfassend ist festzuhalten, dass …”

“Insgesamt lässt sich feststellen, dass …”

“Auf Grundlage der vorliegenden Daten kann davon ausgegangen werden, dass …”

“Die Auswertung zeigt, dass …”

“Vor dem Hintergrund der dargestellten Ergebnisse ist davon auszugehen, dass …”

Typical recommendation formulas:

“Auf dieser Basis wird empfohlen, …”

“Es wird vorgeschlagen, …”

“Es erscheint sinnvoll, … zu …”

“Es sollte geprüft werden, ob …”

“Um die Situation zu verbessern, sollten folgende Maßnahmen in Betracht gezogen werden: …”

When formulating recommendations in institutional contexts, it is common to avoid direct imperatives and use suggestions instead. Modal verbs help here.

Evaluation criteria and scales

Professional evaluations work with clear criteria and often use scales. Expressing these in German requires specific vocabulary.

Terms for criteria and indicators:

Terms for scales and ratings:

Example sentence:

“Die Qualität der Kundenbetreuung ist insgesamt als gut einzustufen, bleibt jedoch in einigen Bereichen hinter den Erwartungen zurück.”

or

“Von den 50 geprüften Fällen entsprachen 42 den internen Vorgaben vollständig, 6 nur teilweise und 2 Fällen nicht.”

Coherence and reference to data

Reports and evaluations must remain coherent between raw data, interpretation, and recommendations. In German, this is visible in explicit references to earlier sections.

Useful reference phrases:

“Wie in Abschnitt 3 dargestellt, …”

“Wie Tabelle 2 zeigt, …”

“Wie bereits erwähnt, …”

“Im Folgenden wird auf die in Kapitel 4 beschriebenen Probleme Bezug genommen.”

“Die im vorangegangenen Kapitel dargestellten Ergebnisse bilden die Grundlage für die folgenden Empfehlungen.”

For tables and figures, German uses:

“siehe Tabelle 1,” “siehe Abbildung 3,” “in der folgenden Übersicht,” or “im Anhang (Anlage 2).”

Consistency in terminology is also crucial. Terms introduced in the methodology or context section should be used in the same form throughout the report.

Style features specific to German institutional practice

Several stylistic features characterize professional German reports.

First, long noun phrases are common. For example:

“die Verbesserung der internen Kommunikationsstrukturen”

“die Umsetzung der im Vorjahr empfohlenen Maßnahmen”

“die Einhaltung der gesetzlichen Vorgaben”

Second, German reports often use participle constructions to compress information.

Examples:

“die im Vorjahr durchgeführten Maßnahmen”

“die im Rahmen der Evaluation erhobenen Daten”

“die aus der Analyse resultierenden Empfehlungen”

Third, abbreviations are frequently used but should be defined once.

For example:

“Key Performance Indicators (KPI)”

“Unternehmensbereich Forschung und Entwicklung (F&E)”

“Geschäftsjahr (GJ) 2024”

A first mention can look like:

“Im Geschäftsjahr (GJ) 2024 wurden die Investitionen um 10 % erhöht. Im weiteren Verlauf wird die Abkürzung ‘GJ’ verwendet.”

Fourth, in many institutions the “Sie” form is avoided in reports. The focus lies on subject matter, not on direct address. Direct recommendations rarely use “Sie sollten,” but rather impersonal constructions such as “es wird empfohlen, …”

Typical problems and how to avoid them

Writers at C1 level often face several difficulties when writing reports in German.

A common problem is mixing colloquial and formal style. Words like “ziemlich,” “echt,” “total,” or “krass” have no place in professional evaluations. Replace them with more neutral expressions such as “relativ,” “deutlich,” “ausgeprägt,” or “erheblich.”

Another issue is unclear responsibility and time frames. Phrases like “es wurde gemacht” without actor or date are too vague. Better:

“Im Zeitraum Januar bis März 2025 wurden durch die Abteilung X insgesamt 15 Schulungen durchgeführt.”

A further issue is lack of coherence between data and recommendations. Recommendations must be demonstrably linked to presented evidence and the mandate of the report.

You can avoid this by referring explicitly to data:

“Angesichts der in Kapitel 2 dargestellten hohen Fluktuationsrate wird empfohlen, ein strukturiertes Onboarding-Programm einzuführen.”

Finally, overuse of complex sentences without clear punctuation makes the text hard to read. Even in formal German, prefer clear main clauses and only as much subordination as is necessary.

New vocabulary from this chapter