OPINION | The Disconnect in Climate Change Vocabulary and Its Impact on Collaboration​

Based on research conducted by KD Strategies, in partnership with INSPIRE and Democracy Works Foundation, a critical barrier to effective climate action has come to light: the absence of a common vocabulary that unites the private sector, public sector, and civil society around climate action goals. While seemingly minor, this disconnect in climate change terminology has significant consequences. It shapes how different sectors interpret climate interventions’ urgency, scope, and purpose, often hindering collaboration and exacerbating mistrust. As the impact of climate change intensifies in South Africa—manifesting in everything from prolonged droughts to devastating floods—these misalignments prevent the cohesive, multi-sectoral approaches necessary to address the crisis. The same can be said for inclusive adaptation or resilience building responses – one of the challenges around building social compact around climate change is because the terminology, language and engagement formats used come from minority countries with little to no effort being placed on using or even developing terminology to talk about these issues in languages, formats and phraseology that people from majority countries feel comfortable with and that resonates with their lived experiences. Throughout the Fostering Inclusive Growth through Climate Change Champions project, it became clear that many people from civil society and local government are already engaging in direct climate action without naming it as such. (The project was co-funded by the European Union and was implemented by the Democracy Works Foundation between 2020 and 2024). This disconnect means that while they are engaged in direct climate action, they are missing out on the opportunities and advocacy potential of their engagements.

The research initiative examined two pressing questions: How can development priorities be harmonized across sectors to foster impactful climate change action? Second, how can engagement and coordination between these sectors be enhanced? The project involved extensive stakeholder interviews, focus groups, and consultations within the Witzenberg and Karoo Hoogland municipalities. These regions are experiencing firsthand the destabilizing impacts of climate change that endanger food security, economic stability, and the health and livelihoods of their communities. The study findings reveal the urgency for immediate action and a key obstacle standing in the way: a lack of a shared language around climate change.

This disconnect in terminology can be viewed as both a cause and a symptom of deeper issues in climate collaboration. By examining how each sector approaches climate change through its unique lens, we can better understand where misunderstandings arise and how to bridge them to foster a unified climate response.

Policy framework

The Just Transition Framework, which can be seen as the roadmap to an inclusive net zero carbon future, is premised on the delivery of distributive, historical and procedural justice principles so that the transition “leaves no one behind”. (See page 8) ) Globally this often refers to industries and workers that were or still are engaged in high carbon emitting industries. The South African flavour,  instilled via the 3 justice principles on which the framework rests, look beyond the workers to include communities impacted or affected by climate change and its mitigation efforts, as well as those that are living in poverty longing for social and economic development. To that end it lays out the governance structures and systems needed to achieve this, including:

“Empowering individuals, communities, ward committees, municipalities, unions, and civil society organisations to engage in discussions around the transitions that lie ahead (including the creation of new economic clusters), and incorporating their inputs into decisions. (Page 22)

The Framework explicitly calls for a social compact to be built around the Just Transition and the Presidential Climate Change Commission is committed to continue bringing all stakeholders together in constructive dialogue. (page 25). For such a dialogue to truly “leave no one behind” the language used to describe the complex scientific and environmental phenomena we collective need to address, has to be inclusive. This means that language diversity in a country with 11 official languages is essential. It also means that the formats used for such an engagement are crafted to actively allow the voices of those most impacted (for e.g. those already impacted by poverty and inequality) to lead the conversations. Similarly those with a direct responsibility to be at the forefront of localised responses (municipal governments) have to be equipped to identify climate change impacts and responses within the broader context of the Just Transition Framework.

While a shared language by itself is not sufficient to build the necessary social compact, the research found that without it, it is very unlikely to happen.

A Sectoral Divide in Climate Vocabulary

The private sector, particularly among Independent Power Producers (IPPs) and other corporate entities, primarily views climate change regarding risk management and regulatory compliance. Terms like “carbon footprint,” “corporate social responsibility,” “sustainability metrics,” and “ESG (environmental, social, governance) performance” dominate discussions in corporate boardrooms. These terms indicate a perspective that views climate action as an operational necessity driven by the need to minimize business risks, comply with regulations, and enhance brand reputation. Companies may see addressing climate change as managing financial risk and avoiding reputational damage rather than as a social responsibility or societal obligation.

This approach, however, can create a perception that private-sector climate efforts are self-serving. The emphasis on risk management and profitability can be seen as detached from the immediate and tangible needs of communities on the ground. While corporate climate initiatives often yield positive results, the motivations behind them may appear disconnected from local priorities. For instance, when IPPs prioritize “carbon offsetting” and “energy efficiency,” local communities may see these measures as abstract concepts that do not directly address their most pressing concerns, such as job creation, water access, and infrastructure.

In contrast, the public sector views climate change through a policy-oriented, governance-driven framework. In government discourse, climate change terminology frequently includes terms such as “carbon neutrality,” “resilience,” and “sustainable development goals” (SDGs). These terms focus on fulfilling international commitments, adhering to policy frameworks, and establishing long-term resilience. The South African government’s dedication to initiatives such as the Paris Agreement and the Just Energy Transition underscores this approach, signalling that the state recognizes the need for systemic change.

However, while these terms convey a sense of accountability, they can often feel abstract to local stakeholders and communities. For example, in Witzenberg and Karoo Hoogland, “carbon neutrality” may be perceived as a distant, intangible target with limited relevance to day-to-day struggles. Communities grappling with immediate environmental impacts, like unpredictable rainfall and extreme temperatures, need assurances that policy goals will translate into concrete improvements. When government language does not align with the realities on the ground, public sector initiatives may struggle to build trust and engagement with local stakeholders.

Finally, civil society organizations (CSOs) and community-based organizations (CBOs) tend to adopt a people-centred language of climate change. In these groups, terms like “community resilience,” “food security,” and “climate adaptation” take precedence. This vocabulary is rooted in the everyday realities of communities that feel the impact of climate change most acutely. CSOs and CBOs focus on the human dimension of climate issues, emphasizing social justice, equity, and the protection of vulnerable populations. Their discourse is anchored in immediate needs—access to food, water, and health services—and reflects a holistic approach to climate adaptation that incorporates socio-economic concerns.

This language, however, can appear overly idealistic to other sectors, particularly when scaling up to policy or business levels. While CSOs may see “community resilience” as integral to addressing climate impacts, private sector, and public actors may perceive these goals as too broad or impractical within the existing frameworks. While essential, the emphasis on social justice and equity can be challenging to reconcile with profit-oriented or policy-driven perspectives, especially when resource limitations constrain efforts.

The Challenges of Misalignment and Communication Silos

The divergence in climate vocabulary among these sectors creates significant barriers to collaboration. Each sector’s language and approach are not merely linguistic differences but reflect fundamental differences in values, priorities, and objectives. As a result, each sector’s climate initiatives risk becoming siloed, with limited cross-sectoral impact.

For example, when IPPs prioritize “carbon offsets,” communities may view these efforts as distant and irrelevant, failing to see how they will address pressing local issues like water scarcity or employment. Meanwhile, public sector initiatives framed around “resilience” and “sustainability” can feel disconnected from the day-to-day needs of rural communities. In advocating for community resilience and adaptation, civil society may appear disconnected from the realities of policy or corporate operational frameworks where resources are finite and external market forces or governmental constraints define priorities.

The misalignment is particularly problematic in the renewable energy sector, where IPPs often clash with local community expectations. In many cases, IPPs enter communities to provide sustainable energy solutions, which they frame as contributions to national and global climate goals. However, local stakeholders may not view these initiatives through the same lens. Rather than seeing them as steps toward a sustainable future, communities might see them as disruptive projects that offer little direct benefit. Without clear, inclusive communication that bridges these differing perspectives, what could be mutually beneficial projects become points of contention.

Furthermore, public consultations, mandated by South Africa’s National Environmental Management Act (NEMA), are often dominated by technical language that can alienate community members. When the language of public participation excludes those most affected by climate policies, it only reinforces the disconnect between sectors. This disconnect leads to perceptions that public consultations are formalities rather than genuine attempts to integrate community feedback, further weakening the potential for cooperation.

Toward a Unified Vocabulary: Bridging the Gaps

To foster effective collaboration, South Africa’s climate stakeholders need to work toward a shared language that reconciles these different approaches to climate change. While each sector brings valuable expertise and unique perspectives, a unified vocabulary is essential for building trust and facilitating constructive dialogue. Such a vocabulary would bridge corporate risk management goals, policy-oriented frameworks, and community-focused concerns, creating a common ground for collective action.

The private sector can contribute to this process by broadening its language to include social and community-oriented concepts that resonate with public and civil society priorities. For example, companies operating in vulnerable areas could focus on the community impacts of their carbon footprints, acknowledging how emissions and resource use affect local health and livelihoods. When companies discuss their sustainability metrics, they can do so in ways directly linked to community resilience and well-being. For example, companies can demonstrate how their initiatives protect local water resources, reduce pollution, or create jobs rather than solely emphasizing carbon reductions.

The public sector, in turn, could make climate policies more accessible and relevant to the communities they impact. By simplifying policy language and making climate goals tangible, governments can help local stakeholders understand the benefits of climate commitments. When communities see that “resilience” includes improved infrastructure, reliable water sources, and enhanced emergency response systems, they are more likely to engage constructively with public initiatives.

Civil society can further support this process by advocating for inclusive language and promoting transparency and accessibility in climate discourse. CSOs and CBOs are well-positioned to act as translators between the technical language of policy and the human-centred language of communities. Since they often provide essential, day to day services to their community their relationships are often based on trust. They are also well positioned to identify localised modes of engagement that have proven effective in their communities. They can bridge the communication gap by framing complex climate policies in ways that resonate with local concerns, helping communities understand how national goals impact their everyday lives. Civil society organizations can drive a more inclusive, grassroots approach to climate action through partnerships with the private and public sectors.

The Path Forward: Building a Shared Foundation for Climate Action

In South Africa, where climate impacts disproportionately affect vulnerable communities, a unified language around climate change is not just an ideal but a necessity. Each sector has a vital role in addressing the multifaceted challenges of climate change, but collaboration remains elusive without a common language. By building this shared foundation, stakeholders can move beyond isolated actions and mistrust and begin to work collectively toward sustainable, equitable solutions.

Bridging the linguistic and conceptual divides among sectors will not be easy, but it is essential if South Africa is to create a resilient, climate-smart future. Through adopting a shared vocabulary, South Africa’s private, public, and civil society sectors can unlock the full potential of cross-sectoral collaboration, leveraging their unique strengths to address the country’s pressing climate challenges in inclusive, impactful, and transformative ways. With a shared understanding and mutual respect for each sector’s priorities, South Africa can set an example of unified climate action that addresses environmental goals and uplifts and protects those communities most at risk.