From ESG to purpose, the language of business is crowded with big ideas – some diluted, some disputed, some drifting from their original meaning. Here we trace the rise and fall of today’s business buzzwords to ask: what do they really mean now – and are they still worth using? 

Thought leadership 

Definition: An expert on a particular subject whose ideas and opinions influence other people, especially in business. 

Origins: Coined in the 1990s by Joel Kurtzman, editor-in-chief of Strategy+Business, to describe people with original insights that shaped not just their companies, but their industries.
  
Then:  Think Peter Drucker on management. Clayton Christensen on disruption. Jim Collins on what makes companies great. Thought leaders earned authority through rigour, clarity and substance. Their ideas changed how we work and lead. 

Now: A LinkedIn cliché. Often self-appointed, the term now accompanies content that’s more polished than pioneering – more personal brand than big idea. 

TBT’s take:  Thought leadership still matters – when it’s genuine, rigorous and offered in service of others. But the title isn’t one you give yourself. It has to be earned and conferred by others. 

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)  

Definition: The idea that a company should be interested in and willing to help society and the environment, as well as be concerned about the products and profits it makes. 

Origins: Before there was purpose, sustainability and ESG, there was CSR.  The concept has roots in centuries-old philanthropy, but the term was formally introduced in 1953 by American economist Howard Bowen in Social Responsibilities of the Businessman.

Then: Think Ben & Jerry’s campaigning for social justice. The Body Shop putting ethics before profit. CSR once reflected deep, values-led commitments – not just what companies did, but what they stood for. It was about responsibility before reputation, long before the word “optics” entered the boardroom. 

Now: CSR has evolved to tackle modern challenges, like climate change. Some elements of CSR have even been formalised into regulation, with policies like the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) or Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD).  But for many, it’s lost its force – reduced to box-ticking or used as a reputational shield. 

TBT‘s take: CSR still matters – especially when it’s part of a company’s DNA, not just its marketing. When Patagonia’s founder made Earth the company’s only shareholder, it wasn’t labelled CSR – but it captured the spirit perfectly: values first, reporting second.

Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) 

Definition: A set of ideas or policies that consider the effects on the environment and on society of how a business  operates – from investment choices to reporting practices. 

Origins: First used in a 2004 UN report titled Who Cares Wins, ESG was created as a framework to help investors consider  long-term risks – social, environmental and ethical – not just quarterly returns. It aimed to embed responsibility into the heart of capitalism. 

Then: ESG promised that doing good and doing well could align. Larry Fink’s BlackRock letters urged CEOs to prioritise purpose. Unilever under Paul Polman became a poster child for stakeholder-led growth. The idea wasn’t just that ESG considerations mattered – but that they could outperform in the long run. 

Now:  The term has become politically polarising – derided as “woke capitalism” by some, and accused of greenwashing by others. Because ESG spans three broad, often competing areas, it’s lost clarity and punch.The rush to become an ESG-focused company has led to overuse of the term and devalued its meaning,  as noted by London Business School’s Alex Edmans.
 
TBT’s take:  ESG still points in the right direction – but the label is increasingly abandoned even when the principles remain. What’s needed now isn’t more ESG talk, but credible, transparent action on the issues it was meant to address. 

Purpose

Definition: To create value for society and promote human wellbeing, generating a fair return for investors (definition from A Blueprint for a Better Business). 
 
Origins: The term emerged as “shareholder theory” began to falter.  Milton Friedman’s idea that a business’s only responsibility is to increase profits was losing traction. In its place emerged a broader view – that companies should serve people, planet and profit alike. 
 
Then:  Think Danone under Emmanuel Faber re-certifying as a B Corp. Or Kickstarter, which rewrote its corporate charter to become a Public Benefit Corporation – legally binding itself to values beyond shareholder return. These were not just branding exercises – they were structural shifts that made purpose central to how the business operated. 
 
Now:  Purpose risks becoming wallpaper. It’s on the website, in the annual report – but rarely in the room where decisions get made. While 79% of global execs say purpose is central to their organisation, only 34% say it actually guides leadership decisions (PwC). It’s made the way for the term ‘purpose-washing’. 
 
TBT’s take: We speak of purpose like it’s a single, shining revelation. One perfect thing we’re meant to do. But purpose should reflect experiences, culture and ethics and it should shift with time, not just be a static goal. 

Sustainability   

Definition: The quality of being able to continue over a period of time, often referring to causing little or no damage to the environment. 
 
Origins: Ecological circles first coined the term to describe systems that could endure without collapse. In 1987, the Brundtland Report brought the term into corporate use, defining sustainability as meeting “the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own. 
 
Then:  IKEA investing in sustainable forestry. Interface carpeting turning factory waste into closed-loop materials. These weren’t perfect systems – but they marked a shift from extraction to regeneration. Sustainability was a commitment to future generations – not a comms strategy, but a course correction. 
 
Now: A buzzword smoothed of all urgency.  Lofty claims often outpace real action. The Paris Agreement showed that even global consensus can falter without enforcement. We’ve entered a phase of “greenstalling” – ambition delayed by fear of scrutiny, complexity or political cost. 
 
TBT’s take:  If everything is called sustainable, the word stops meaning anything. We need clarity, accountability and urgency – not just greener branding. As econometrician Gaya Herrington says, “Our choice isn’t whether to keep growing or not. It’s whether the end of growth will come by design or disaster”. 

Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI)    

Definition: The idea that all people should have equal rights and treatment and be welcomed and included, so that they do not experience any disadvantage because of belonging to a particular group, and that each person should be given the same opportunities as others according to their needs. 
 
Origins:  Rooted in the civil rights era, particularly the 1964 US Civil Rights Act – a landmark law banning discrimination by race, gender, religion and nationality. DEI builds on that legacy, moving from legal compliance to cultural transformation. 
 
Then: Think Intel in 2015, tying executive pay to hitting internal diversity targets – a move that linked leadership accountability to measurable change. Or Channel 4’s 2021 “Black to Front” day – dedicating an entire day’s schedule to Black talent on and off screen. These weren’t just symbolic gestures – they prompted organisations to reconsider who gets seen, heard and promoted. As the conversation evolved, inclusion and equity were added – shifting the focus from headcounts to belonging and fairness. 
 
Now: DEI is a political battleground.. In the US, it’s been cast by some as a partisan project – with the Trump administration rolling back federal DEI programs. In response, companies are rebranding efforts as “belonging” or “inclusive leadership.” At the same time, many employees now see DEI as surface-level – more statement than substance. 
 
TBT’s take: The business case for diversity is proven – but the term now attracts more controversy than clarity. The work will continue – but often under quieter, rebranded terms. What matters is not what we call it, but whether it actually changes who has power, voice and opportunity. 

Net Zero  

Definition: Achieving a balance between the greenhouse gases a company emits and the amount it removes from the atmosphere – usually through a combination of emissions cuts and offsetting. 

Origins: Popularised after the 2015 Paris Agreement, where countries committed to limiting global warming to 1.5°C. Net zero became the rallying cry for business and government alike – a goalpost for climate action. 

Then: In 2019, Microsoft pledged to be carbon negative by 2030 – and to remove all its historical emissions by 2050. Google declared it had already erased its operational carbon legacy. Net zero was bold, measurable and backed by science. It marked a shift from intention to obligation. 

Now: A catch-all term that’s often more slogan than strategy. Net zero targets are everywhere – but many rely on future technologies or carbon offsets of questionable value. “Net zero by 2050” sounds ambitious – but without interim action, it risks being a delay tactic in disguise. 

TBT’s take: Net zero isn’t meaningless – but it needs a reality check. Vague pledges and fuzzy timelines won’t cut it. Real credibility comes from near-term action, clear metrics and the willingness to be held to account.