In recent years, the commitment of the world’s largest corporations to achieving ‘net-zero’ carbon emissions has emerged as a prominent theme in the global dialogue on climate change. These pledges have become almost ubiquitous among Fortune Global 500 companies, promoted with a sense of urgency and responsibility. However, a meticulous linguistic analysis conducted by researchers at the University of Birmingham reveals that many of these declarations may be more symbolic than substantive, serving primarily as tools for managing corporate reputation rather than initiating concrete climate action. This study, published in the journal Applied Corpus Linguistics, offers a rigorous examination of the language surrounding net-zero pledges, shedding light on how corporate discourse shapes public perception and policy expectations.
Drs Matteo Fuoli and Annika Beelitz employed advanced corpus linguistic techniques to analyze over 1,200 sustainability reports released by the world’s largest companies between 2020 and 2022. By combining quantitative statistical analysis with qualitative interpretation, the researchers unpacked the patterns, themes, and rhetorical strategies embedded in corporate climate narratives. Their findings suggest that the adoption of net-zero targets is fundamentally driven by external pressures—including legal requirements, competitive imitation among industry peers, and prevailing social norms—rather than by a firm internal commitment to systemic environmental change.
Critically, the study exposes a troubling reliance on vague and aspirational language. Many companies frame net-zero as an ongoing “journey” or “ambition,” terms which lack the precision required for measurable accountability. These euphemistic expressions often mask weak strategic commitments, allowing corporations to paint a progressive climate profile without implementing the transformative policies necessary to achieve their stated goals. This linguistic opacity poses significant challenges for regulators, investors, and civil society groups striving to hold companies accountable for their environmental impact.
Oil and gas firms, in particular, appear to use net-zero pledges as instruments of legitimacy management. Given the intense scrutiny these companies face due to their historic and ongoing contribution to greenhouse gas emissions, their sustainability reports emphasize minimizing direct operational emissions. However, they frequently omit or downplay the substantial indirect emissions generated by the combustion of their products—a practice known as Scope 3 emissions. This selective reporting illustrates how net-zero rhetoric can be manipulated to maintain a veneer of environmental responsibility without addressing the full scope of corporate carbon footprints.
Financial services companies present a different but equally problematic narrative. Their reports commonly highlight participation in global net-zero alliances, such as the UN’s Net-Zero Asset Owner Alliance, to project an image of collaborative commitment. Yet, the underlying strategies articulated to achieve net-zero outcomes are often vague and poorly defined, suggesting that these alliances function more as reputational affiliations than catalysts for genuine operational change. This dynamic underscores how institutional investors may be leveraging symbolic association over substantive climate finance reform.
The study also reveals a broader trend of prioritizing ‘techno-optimism’ within corporate net-zero discourse. Many sustainability reports emphasize technological innovation and future breakthroughs—such as advancements in renewable energy technologies and carbon capture methods—over structural reforms and systemic transformations. While technological progress is undoubtedly important, this narrative risks deferring responsibility to hypothetical solutions rather than incentivizing immediate, large-scale emissions reductions and policy re-alignments.
These findings gain further relevance in light of recent backtracking by major oil companies like BP and Shell, which have rolled back some of their initial climate commitments amid mounting geopolitical and economic pressures. Such reversals highlight the fragility of corporate climate strategies and call into question the resilience of pledges framed more as symbolic gestures than as binding obligations. The University of Birmingham study argues that without greater transparency and enforceability, these net-zero declarations could perpetuate a cycle of greenwashing rather than drive meaningful environmental progress.
Dr Fuoli emphasizes that while net-zero pledges represent an important rhetorical step towards sustainability, their effectiveness is contingent upon measurable progress and radical transparency. Only through robust internal policies, clear emission reduction targets, and external verification mechanisms can corporations transition from symbolic rhetoric to genuine climate leadership. Otherwise, net-zero risks becoming another corporate buzzword—deployed to placate stakeholders without delivering tangible results.
The research also calls for increased scrutiny from regulators, investors, and civil society organizations. Dr Beelitz underscores that mere aspirational language and public relations exercises will not suffice in the face of escalating climate emergencies. Instead, she advocates for enforceable standards and rigorous disclosure requirements that compel companies to move beyond performative commitments and toward verifiable action. This call to action aligns with broader international efforts to enhance corporate accountability and embed climate considerations into global financial systems.
Moreover, the study’s linguistic approach offers a novel methodology for assessing corporate climate communication. By systematically analyzing large volumes of text, the researchers demonstrate how language functions not only as a medium of information but as a strategic tool shaping climate governance discourse. This interdisciplinary fusion of linguistics and environmental policy analysis opens new avenues for understanding and challenging corporate climate narratives.
In conclusion, while the proliferation of net-zero pledges among the world’s largest corporations reflects growing awareness of environmental responsibility, the substance behind these commitments often falls short. The University of Birmingham’s pioneering corpus-assisted study reveals a tendency toward symbolic language, selective disclosure, and a techno-optimistic framing that together risk obscuring the urgent need for transformative climate action. The findings urge a recalibration of corporate climate strategies toward greater transparency, enforceability, and impactful emission reductions, reinforcing that true climate leadership entails much more than words—it demands measurable, systemic change.
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
References:
Fuoli, M., & Beelitz, A. (2025). Corporate buzzword or genuine commitment? A corpus-assisted analysis of corporate ‘net-zero’ pledges by major global corporations. Applied Corpus Linguistics.
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
