In recent years, the phrase “net-zero” has emerged as a powerful buzzword among the world’s largest corporations, reverberating through press releases, annual reports, and sustainability statements. Positioned as a critical cornerstone in the global effort to mitigate climate change, net-zero pledges often convey an image of proactive environmental stewardship. However, a groundbreaking linguistic study by researchers from the University of Birmingham reveals that these pledges frequently function more as reputational tools than as genuine commitments to transformative carbon reduction. By delving deeply into the language patterns of Fortune Global 500 companies’ sustainability reports, the study illuminates a pervasive disconnect between the rhetoric of net-zero and substantive climate action.
At the heart of this research lies a corpus-assisted analysis, an advanced linguistic methodology that combines quantitative textual data analysis with qualitative interpretation. Drs Matteo Fuoli and Annika Beelitz scrutinized over 1,200 sustainability reports published between 2020 and 2022, effectively charting the discourse landscape of corporate climate communication at an unprecedented scale. Their findings illuminate how companies construct narratives around net-zero, deploying aspirational language that simultaneously meets social expectations and shields against legitimacy loss in an increasingly climate-conscious market environment.
Legitimacy concerns emerge as a fundamental driver of net-zero pledges. The study identifies distinct sectoral variations in motivation: oil and gas companies, facing intense public and regulatory scrutiny, tend to adopt net-zero language as a defensive response to legitimacy crises. Conversely, financial services firms employ net-zero discourse to signal alliance-building and peer conformity within high-profile climate initiatives like the UN-convened Net-Zero Asset Owner Alliance. Despite such high-visibility commitments, the research reveals that many narratives remain vague, emphasizing symbolic alignment rather than outlining robust strategies for decarbonization.
One crucial insight from the analysis is the persistent use of ambiguous, non-committal vocabulary, often framing net-zero as a “journey” or “ambition” without detailed action plans. This vagueness facilitates a window dressing effect, where companies portray an image of progress while sidestepping commitments that would entail measurable, enforceable outcomes. The preference for aspirational rhetoric over concrete pledges raises questions about the sincerity and resilience of corporate climate strategies, especially under geopolitical and economic pressures that can undermine initial commitments.
Moreover, the study exposes a techno-optimistic bias dominating corporate narratives. Innovation, particularly in renewable energy technologies, is heralded as the linchpin of future emission reductions. However, less attention is devoted to systemic reforms or structural transformations that might be necessary for achieving genuine net-zero status. This overreliance on technological solutions risks underestimating the scale and complexity of the changes required in corporate operations, supply chains, and consumption patterns to limit global warming effectively.
Emissions scope also presents a significant blind spot. While some companies pledge to address all emission categories—including direct emissions from company operations (Scope 1), indirect emissions from purchased energy (Scope 2), and the often considerable downstream impacts of their products and services (Scope 3)—many, especially oil and gas giants, limit their commitments to direct emissions alone. This selective accounting obscures the full environmental footprint and allows for continued fossil fuel dependency under the guise of progress, raising alarms among climate experts and activists.
Transparency and accountability remain critical challenges. Dr. Fuoli underscores the necessity of clear targets coupled with measurable progress indicators, warning against vague net-zero commitments slipping into another iteration of “greenwashing”—where companies benefit from the appearance of responsibility without substantive action. The need for data-driven verification frameworks and enforceable policies is paramount to shift corporate net-zero pledges from symbolic posturing toward accountable climate stewardship.
The study also contextualizes recent backtracks by major corporations such as BP and Shell, whose climate commitments have been weakened amid fluctuating geopolitical conditions and economic contingencies. These reversals highlight the fragility of corporate climate promises when confronted with real-world challenges, exposing the insufficiency of rhetorical commitments unsupported by binding governance mechanisms.
Dr. Beelitz emphasizes the collective responsibility borne by regulators, investors, and civil society actors. She advocates for heightened scrutiny of corporate claims, urging stakeholders to demand beyond mere aspirational language and instead insist on legally enforceable responsibilities. Only through such rigorous oversight and pressure can meaningful climate leadership emerge from the corporate sector.
Notably, the linguistic scope of the analysis reveals that nearly 75 percent of the Fortune Global 500 referenced net-zero in their disclosures, signaling widespread acceptance of the concept’s legitimacy and relevance. Yet, the superficial adoption of the term without accompanying action plans dilutes its transformative potential. This phenomenon underscores a critical challenge in the global climate agenda: navigating the balance between symbolic legitimacy and substantive environmental impact.
The research further highlights how financial firms’ involvement in net-zero alliances, while publicly celebrated, often lacks transparency regarding operational strategies. Such membership frequently serves as a reputational signal rather than a reflection of concrete emission reduction pathways. This perfunctory alignment poses risks of creating an echo chamber of complacency, where alliance participation substitutes for real systemic change.
In conclusion, the University of Birmingham study provides a sobering and technically robust lens through which to assess corporate net-zero pledges. It urges a recalibration of expectations—promoting transparency, enforceability, and measurable milestones as essential components of authentic climate commitments. As global climate negotiations accelerate, understanding the nuanced language of corporate sustainability reports is vital for policymakers, investors, and citizens seeking to hold corporations accountable and drive forward genuine carbon mitigation.
Subject of Research: People
Article Title: ‘Corporate buzzword or genuine commitment? A corpus-assisted analysis of corporate ‘net-zero’ pledges by major global corporations’
News Publication Date: 28-Aug-2025
Web References:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666799125000255
Keywords: Business, Applied linguistics, Climate change, Climate change adaptation, Climate change mitigation, Linguistics, Language families, Sustainable development, Natural resources management, Environmental issues, Environmental economics, Pollutants, Anthropogenic carbon dioxide, Greenhouse effect
