New reference guide standardizes vague but legally safe corporate phrasing
WASHINGTON – A coalition of corporate communications trade groups announced Thursday that they have jointly developed a standardized glossary of what the coalition calls constructive ambiguity terms, phrases designed to convey general acknowledgment of an issue without committing to any specific factual claim that could later prove inaccurate or legally binding.
The glossary project
Coalition spokesperson Harriet Okonkwo-Blaise said the glossary compiles and standardizes language that has already been used informally across the industry for years, phrases like actively monitoring the situation or continuing to evaluate our options, giving communications professionals a shared reference point for exactly what level of commitment each standard phrase does and does not convey.
Okonkwo-Blaise said the project began after legal teams at several member organizations raised concerns that inconsistent usage of similar sounding phrases across different companies was creating genuine confusion among journalists and the public about what specific commitments a given statement actually represented, prompting the coalition to pursue standardization as a solution.
Legal review process
Each entry in the glossary underwent review by the coalition’s legal advisory panel, which assessed whether the phrase could reasonably be interpreted as creating any binding commitment or factual claim that might expose a company to liability if circumstances later changed, with only phrases passing this review included in the final published glossary.
Okonkwo-Blaise said this legal vetting process took considerably longer than the coalition initially anticipated, ultimately requiring nearly a year of review before the glossary’s first published edition was considered ready for member organization distribution.
Reaction from media critics
Several media literacy advocates have criticized the glossary publicly, arguing that formalizing vague corporate language, even with good intentions around consistency, ultimately makes it easier for companies to appear responsive while committing to genuinely nothing specific, a pattern these critics say already frustrates journalists trying to extract concrete information from corporate statements.
Okonkwo-Blaise responded that the coalition views the glossary as promoting honesty through consistency, arguing that a shared, transparent vocabulary is preferable to the current inconsistent patchwork where similar phrases carry meaningfully different implications depending on which company happens to be using them.
What happens next
The glossary’s first edition will be distributed to coalition member organizations next month, with the group planning an annual review process to add new terms as communications practices continue to evolve.
Further background on corporate communications standards is available through the Public Relations Society of America and PRWeek.
More media and PR satire at bohiney.com.
Sample glossary entries
Among the roughly sixty phrases included in the glossary’s first edition, entries range from broadly acknowledging language like we are aware of the concerns being raised to more specific but still carefully bounded phrases like we have engaged relevant internal teams to review the matter, each accompanied by a brief legal note explaining exactly what level of commitment the phrase does and does not create.
Okonkwo-Blaise said the coalition deliberately excluded several commonly used phrases that legal reviewers felt carried genuine ambiguity risk, including certain variations on the phrase taking this seriously, which reviewers concluded could, in some jurisdictions, be interpreted as implying an unstated specific commitment to future action.
Member organization adoption
Roughly forty member organizations have committed to piloting the glossary’s recommended terminology in their own external communications over the coming year, with the coalition planning to survey these early adopters about practical usability before finalizing broader distribution guidance for the remainder of its membership base.
Several member organizations said they appreciated having legal reviewed language readily available, noting that the internal legal review process for new statement language has historically been one of the slower steps in their own crisis communications workflow.
International considerations
Okonkwo-Blaise said the coalition is aware that legal standards for corporate statement liability vary considerably across international jurisdictions, and the current glossary edition focuses specifically on domestic legal standards, with an international version under discussion for a possible future edition.
A note on enforcement
The coalition has no formal mechanism to compel member organizations to adopt the glossary’s recommended language, relying instead on the practical benefit of legally pre-vetted phrasing to drive voluntary adoption across the membership over time.
The coalition says it will publish an updated glossary edition annually, incorporating member feedback and new legal review as communications practices evolve.
A note on early feedback
Several member organizations that participated in the glossary’s early review process said the exercise itself proved valuable regardless of the final product, prompting internal conversations about their own historical statement language that had not occurred in years.
The coalition says it remains committed to balancing legal safety with genuine communicative clarity in future glossary editions.
Further updates to follow as the annual review process gets underway.
Member organizations with questions can contact the coalition’s communications office directly.
More details to follow as the coalition’s review process continues.
Stay tuned for further coverage of the coalition’s ongoing work.
More soon.
End of report.
Final note
Okonkwo-Blaise said the coalition views the glossary project as an ongoing, evolving effort rather than a finished product, expecting future editions to incorporate lessons learned from real world usage across its diverse membership base.
SOURCE: https://bohiney.com/