Previous Story
Corporations: Sustainable Rhetoric vs. Contradictory Actions
How can companies discuss sustainable development without being accused of demagoguery? The Ujjef association and the Inférences firm have just conducted a semantic analysis of corporate discourse regarding sustainability. An interview with Jean Laloux, Director of Inférences, who led the study.
Whether by necessity or choice, companies deploy abundant corporate messaging through annual reports and websites. But what, exactly, are they trying to communicate? This is the question addressed by Ujjef and the firm Interférences in a semantic analysis conducted in September 2009, based on a panel of 45 companies representing 19 different industries. According to Boris Eloy, President of Ujjef—an association specializing in corporate communications—sustainable development is indeed a reality in corporate discourse. “Regardless of what may be said, it has become an operational priority for large corporations rather than a mere branding issue,” he notes.
*What defines the corporate discourse on corporate sustainable development?*
Jean Laloux: From a semantic perspective, their discourse reveals a landscape of control, measurement (20%), and proactive intent (20%). For instance, terms such as “develop,” “engage,” and “continue” are frequently cited. However, in the face of this proactive stance, the discourse bypasses the inherent contradictions of sustainable development. First, companies are still far from a paradigm shift. They want to change, yet they remain focused on economic performance. When they speak of sustainable development, they are mostly thinking of development in its simplest sense. Furthermore, executives are hitting the limits of short-termism: there is a desire to move toward something new, but there is a lack of a true “sustainable development” strategy.
Is the era of “greenwashing” over?
J. L.: Companies are launching genuine initiatives. Previously, they displayed commitment without concrete or measurable proof. Today, an analysis of semantic fields reveals a focus on “standards,” “monitoring,” and “measurement.” The era of “greenspeaking” may now be coming to an end. While executives clearly demonstrate the will to adopt a sustainable development strategy, these may ultimately prove to be mere “token gestures.” This is evident in the language used: additive connectors are the most frequent in their discourse (70%), such as “and,” “furthermore,” and “in addition.” This represents more of an accumulation of points than a true demonstration of impact.
What type of communication do you advocate for?
J. L.: Stop doing what has always been done; that is the new mandate. Today, companies must embrace their contradictions and justify their choices. We are reaching the end of this flat, timid form of communication, moving toward something much more audacious. It is time to establish clear positions, engage in strategic communication and political discourse, and stand by them. I urge companies to ground their communication and not to hide their paradoxes. Otherwise, we end up in a state of “paralysis.” There is a genuine expectation for this shift.
