Sustainability language is where meaning turns into action. A term chosen in a report, a policy, a training deck, or a public statement can shape what people measure, what they prioritize, and what they implement. And because sustainability is a fast-evolving field, terminology does not “settle” on its own—especially in Turkish, where competing equivalents often coexist without a shared standard.
We saw this directly in the field. At sustainability summits and sector gatherings, we asked more than 1,000 participants for the Turkish equivalent of greenwashing and received around ten different answers. That moment captured the real problem: sustainability communication fails not only because people disagree on outcomes, but because they often lack a common language for the same concept.
This is exactly why sustainability localization is not standard translation. It is controlled meaning-making under scrutiny—built on evidence, references, and context. In sustainability, a phrase that sounds “nice” but carries the wrong implication can mislead stakeholders, weaken credibility, and derail implementation. That is why our work is not about polished wording. It is about building a shared, traceable sustainability language people can trust.
Sustainability Language Is a Living System
Sustainability terminology does not remain stable. Unlike legal definitions or corporate governance language, sustainability terms evolve alongside science, regulation, reporting standards, and public expectations. New frameworks emerge, existing concepts are refined, and previously niche terms move rapidly into mainstream use.
This creates a fundamental challenge for translation and localization: a term that was acceptable—or even dominant—two years ago may already be outdated, contested, or misleading today. In sustainability communication, precision is not a one-time achievement. It is an ongoing responsibility.
This is particularly visible in frameworks such as the GRI Standards, IFRS S1 and S2, national reporting obligations, and climate-related disclosures. While these frameworks increasingly align conceptually, their terminology does not always map cleanly across languages. Turkish adaptations often coexist with multiple alternatives, each carrying different implications for scope, intent, and applicability.
For sustainability-focused organizations—including B-Corp–aligned companies—this instability creates risk. Inconsistent terminology weakens comparability, complicates reporting, and opens the door to misinterpretation—sometimes even accusations of greenwashing where intent was sound but language was not.
From Translation to Terminology Governance
This is where sustainability localization diverges sharply from conventional translation.
The task is not merely to “find a Turkish equivalent,” but to determine which term reflects current international usage, aligns with evolving standards and regulatory language, and can function consistently across reports, policies, training materials, and public communication.
The Sürdürülebilir Çeviri project was developed precisely to address this gap. Rather than treating sustainability terms as static dictionary entries, the project approaches terminology as a governance issue—one that requires references, testing, comparison, and continuous validation.
Each entry in the Sustainability Glossary is built on:
- international standards, reports, and academic references,
- alternative Turkish equivalents evaluated through context-based testing,
- example sentences drawn from real sustainability discourse, and
- ongoing updates as frameworks and practices evolve.
This ensures that sustainability language remains both accurate and usable—without freezing meaning prematurely or oversimplifying complex concepts.
Real Sustainability Localization Situations We Encountered
- One term, ten answers: why “greenwashing” cannot be treated casually
At four different sustainability summits, we spoke with more than 1,000 participants and asked them what they considered to be the Turkish equivalent of the widely used industry term “greenwashing.” Despite high English proficiency and native Turkish fluency, we received around ten different answers. The takeaway was clear: the industry does not naturally converge on terminology. Standardization requires evidence, testing, and transparent references—not assumptions.
- Carbon emission: equivalent choice is not a preference—it is a function
A single concept triggered weeks of debate: should carbon emission be rendered as salım, salınım, or emisyon? The issue was not only which option sounded better, but how each option behaves in context—its connotations, its register, and its compatibility with established technical usage across sectors.
- Idiomatic language adapted for global comprehension
Turkish source content often relies on culturally embedded metaphors to convey effort, care, and collective construction. In the FAQ section of the website, the idiom “ilmek ilmek işlemek” could have been translated literally as “weave it stitch by stitch.” Instead, the phrasing was adapted for a global audience as “built from the ground up.”
This choice was not about localizing sustainability concepts themselves, but about ensuring that the content and intent of the FAQ section were immediately clear and natural to international readers—preserving meaning while avoiding culturally opaque or awkward literal renderings.
- A glossary is not just terminology—it is traceability
Each term in the Sustainability Glossary is supported with example sentences and references, because sustainability language must be verifiable. This is not academic perfectionism. It is a practical safeguard against concept drift, trend-driven wording, and vague “ESG language” that sounds right but collapses under scrutiny.
- Intersectionality is not a slogan—it is a scope decision
The glossary was built with an explicit awareness of sustainability’s interconnected fields. That is why it includes both everyday social concepts and more specialized technical terms—designed to serve academic use, professional reporting, and public understanding at the same time.
Where AI Helps—and Where It Fails in Sustainability Language
AI can support sustainability workflows by accelerating drafts, suggesting candidate equivalents, or helping manage large volumes of content. But sustainability localization is not a pattern-matching problem. It requires judgment about:
- whether a term is established or emerging,
- whether an equivalent is widely understood or misleading,
- whether a phrase communicates action or merely signals virtue,
- and whether the language enables clarity across stakeholder groups.
Sustainability claims are evaluated in context. AI does not reliably hold that context.
Sustainability Language Is a Shared Responsibility
Sustainability only works when people genuinely understand what is being said—and what is being asked of them. Clear language is what turns intention into practice, commitment into action, and values into measurable outcomes. Without that clarity, even well-meant sustainability efforts risk becoming noise.
For B-Corps and purpose-driven organizations in particular, language is part of accountability. It is how values are translated into daily decisions, reports, and public commitments. Consistency is not just ethical—it is essential for trust.
Sustainability localization, when done responsibly, is less about “getting the wording right” and more about creating shared understanding. It connects disciplines, communities, and cultures around a common set of meanings that people can rely on.
This is where Sürdürülebilir Çeviri positions itself—not as a finished glossary, but as a living, collective effort. One that grows with the field, learns from real-world use, and evolves through dialogue. Because a sustainable future does not begin with perfect language—but it does require language we can build on together.
