Discursive construction of technological optimism in environmental discourse: An ecolinguistic analysis of corporate environmental communication in Kenya

Stella Wangari Muriungi; Geoffrey Maroko; Nancy Aanashia Ong’onda

doi:10.51867/ajernet.7.3.135

Authors

Stella Wangari Muriungi Machakos University, Kenya https://orcid.org/0009-0001-8505-1581
Geoffrey Maroko Machakos University, Kenya https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1747-6753
Nancy Aanashia Ong’onda Machakos University, Kenya https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1381-9213

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.51867/ajernet.7.3.135

Keywords:

Ecolinguistics, Environmental Discourse, Ecological Framework, Techno-Optimism

Abstract

The increasing reliance on technological innovation in addressing environmental challenges has generated discourses that position technology as a primary solution to ecological crises. While such technological optimism may encourage innovation, excessive emphasis on technological solutions may downplay the social, behavioural, and institutional responsibilities required for effective environmental conservation. This study investigated the discursive construction of technological optimism in corporate environmental communication among listed corporations in Kenya. The study adopted an explanatory sequential mixed methods research design. A purposive cross-sectoral sample of 36 corporate environmental reports was selected for analysis. Quantitative textual analysis was conducted using AntConc version 4.3.2 to examine word frequencies, collocations, and lexical patterns associated with technology, while qualitative discourse analysis was subsequently used to interpret the identified patterns. The analysis was guided by Critical Discourse Analysis and the ecolinguistic framework. The findings showed that technological optimism was constructed through positive evaluations of technology, quantification of technological interventions, the use of technical vocabulary, and future-oriented and hope-based language. The qualitative analysis further revealed that technology was predominantly represented as a solution to environmental challenges and that technological optimism was reproduced through interdiscursive practices and narratives of hope. These discursive patterns presented corporations as proactive environmental actors while simultaneously shifting attention towards technological solutions and away from broader questions of corporate environmental responsibility. The study concludes that technological optimism in corporate environmental communication can shape perceptions of ecological sustainability by foregrounding technological solutions while potentially obscuring the social and institutional responsibilities associated with environmental protection. The findings contribute to ecolinguistic research by extending its application to corporate environmental communication and demonstrate the importance of examining how linguistic choices influence representations of environmental responsibility. The study recommends the adoption of ecolinguistic audits of corporate environmental communication to identify and minimise narratives that promote technological solutions without clearly articulating measurable and ecologically sustainable goals.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Acha, W. A. (2022). An ecocritical discourse analysis of anthropocentrism in the Cameroonian press. International Journal of Humanity Studies, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.24071/ijhs.v5i2.4202

Aiezza, M. C. (2015). "We may face the risks" … "risks that could adversely affect our face." A corpus-assisted discourse analysis of modality markers in CSR reports. Studies in Communication Sciences, 15(1), 68-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scoms.2015.03.005

Algam, B. N., & Jameel, A. F. (2025). Critical discourse analysis of ideological interdiscursivity in selected artificial intelligence English extracts. International Journal of Environmental Sciences, 11(11s), 321-335. https://doi.org/10.64252/yt74m433

Almashy, A. (2016). Mixed methods in linguistics research: A critical methodological review. International Journal of Information Research and Review, 3(7), 2602-2603.

Avdalyan, L. (2024). Corporate discourse in building corporate identity: On some pragmalinguistic features of annual reports. Foreign Languages in Higher Education, 28(1), 3-23. https://doi.org/10.46991/FLHE/2024.28.1.003

Bergeå, H., Åhlvik, T., & Hallgren, L. (2025). The flipside of hope discourse: Avoiding accountability and assigning responsibility in sustainability transitions. Frontiers in Communication, 10, Article 1562492. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2025.1562492

Cavaglia, G. M. C. (2005). Measuring the homogeneity and similarity of language corpora [Doctoral dissertation, University of Brighton].

Cologna, V., Berthold, A., Kreissel, A. L., & Siegrist, M. (2024). Attitudes towards technology and their relationship with pro-environmental behaviour: Development and validation of the GATT scale. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 95, Article 102258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2024.102258

Dryzek, J. S. (2013). The politics of the earth: Environmental discourses (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.

Fairclough, N. (1993). Critical discourse analysis and the marketization of public discourse: The universities. Discourse & Society, 4(2), 133-168. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926593004002002

Fairclough, N. (2000). Discourse, social theory, and social research: The discourse of welfare reform. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 4(2), 163-195. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9481.00110

Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. Routledge.

https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203697078

Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language (2nd ed.). Routledge.

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315834368

Gardezi, M., & Arbuckle, J. G. (2020). Techno-optimism and farmers' attitudes toward climate change adaptation. Environment and Behavior, 52(1), 82-105. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916518793482

Halliday, M. A. K. (2001). New ways of meaning: The challenge to applied linguistics. In A. Fill & P. Mühlhäusler (Eds.), The ecolinguistics reader: Language, ecology and environment (pp. 175-202). Continuum.

Haslbeck, J. M. B., Sachisthal, M. S. M., & Dablander, F. (2026). Techno-optimism reduces willingness to address climate change [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/x3jqa

Henry, E. (2008). Are investors influenced by how earnings press releases are written? Journal of Business Communication, 45(4), 363-407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021943608319388

Hossain, D. M., Alam, M. S., Mazumder, M. M. M., & Amin, A. (2021). Gender-related discourses in corporate annual reports: An exploratory study on the Bangladeshi companies. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, 17(3), 394-415. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAOC-01-2020-0006

Huang, J., Wang, D. D., & Wang, Y. (2024). Textual attributes of corporate sustainability reports and ESG ratings. Sustainability, 16(21), Article 9270. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16219270

Johnston, S. F. (2020). Techno-fixers: Origins and implications of technological faith. McGill-Queen's University Press.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9780228002048

Juliansyah, E., Indrayani, L. M., & Soemantri, Y. S. (2020). Modal verbs in the UN Secretary-General's remarks on climate change. Jurnal Ilmiah Langue and Parole, 3(2), 1-8.

https://doi.org/10.36057/jilp.v3i2.398

Kapranov, O. (2026). A qualitative analysis of discourse markers in the consultation paper on climate change by the Liberal Democrats. Acta Globalis Humanitatis et Linguarum, 3(2), 122-133. https://doi.org/10.69760/aghel.026002011

Kondowe, W. (2014). Hedging and boosting as interactional metadiscourse in literature doctoral dissertation abstracts. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World, 5(3), 214-221.

Kyyrö, S. (2025). Meanings of a sustainable future and the role of technology: Critical discourse analysis of Sitra's foresight [Master's thesis, Aalto University].

Lamb, W. F., Mattioli, G., Levi, S., Roberts, J. T., Capstick, S., Creutzig, F., Minx, J. C., et al. (2020). Discourses of climate delay. Global Sustainability, 3, e17.

https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.13

Lemke, J. L. (2012). Technical discourse and technocratic ideology. In Learning, keeping and using language: Selected papers from the Eighth World Congress of Applied Linguistics, Sydney, 16-21 August 1987 (Vol. 2, pp. 435-460). John Benjamins.

https://doi.org/10.1075/z.lkul2.31lem

Marcos, H. (2025). Tech won't save us: Climate crisis, techno-optimism, and international law. Law, Technology and Humans, 7(1), 22-46. https://doi.org/10.5204/lthj.3816

McKeown, J. (2018). A corpus-based investigation of techno-optimism and propositional certainty in the National Intelligence Council's "Future Global Trends Reports" (2010-2035). Discourse & Communication, 12(1), 39-57. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481317735625

Nielsen, S. B. (2023). "There is new technology here that can perform miracles": The discursive psychology of technological optimism in climate change policy debates. Journal of Language and Politics, 22(6), 826-845.

https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.23035.nie

Peeters, P., Higham, J., Kutzner, D., Cohen, S., & Gössling, S. (2016). Are technology myths stalling aviation climate policy? Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 44, 30-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2016.02.004

Pérez-Urbina, H. (2026). Tracing the techno-supremacy doctrine: A critical discourse analysis of the AI executive elite. AI and Ethics, 6, Article 307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-026-01141-z

Ribeiro, S., & Soromenho-Marques, V. (2022). The techno-optimists of climate change: Science communication or technowashing? Societies, 12(2), Article 64. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc12020064

Riemens, R. (2024). Fixing the earth: Whole-systems thinking in Silicon Valley's environmental ideology. Internet Histories, 8(4), 294-311. https://doi.org/10.1080/24701475.2024.2416295

Silva, P., & Almeida, M. C. (2020). Green energy in the light of metaphors and metonymia in environmental sustainability discourses. International Journal of Language & Linguistics, 7(4), 44-52. https://doi.org/10.30845/ijll.v7n4p6

Stibbe, A. (2015). Ecolinguistics: Language, ecology and the stories we live by. Routledge.

Stibbe, A. (2021). Ecolinguistics: Language, ecology and the stories we live by (2nd ed.). Routledge.

https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367855512

Stoddard, I., Anderson, K., Capstick, S., Carton, W., Depledge, J., Facer, K., Gough, C., Hache, F., Hoolohan, C., Hultman, M., Hällström, N., Kartha, S., Klinsky, S., Kuchler, M., Lövbrand, E., Nasiritousi, N., Newell, P., Peters, G. P., Sokona, Y., & Williams, M. (2021). Three decades of climate mitigation: Why haven't we bent the global emissions curve? Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 46, 653-689. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-012220-011104

Supran, G., & Oreskes, N. (2021). Rhetoric and frame analysis of ExxonMobil's climate change communications. One Earth, 4(5), 696-719.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.04.014

van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2002). A framework for digital divide research. Electronic Journal of Communication, 12(1).

Wakoko, M. W., & Mudogo, B. A. (2021). The role of Indigenous econaming systems in ecological conservation: A case of Lubukusu and Lukabarasi languages in Western Kenya. LLT Journal: A Journal on Language and Language Learning, 24(1), 82-91. https://doi.org/10.24071/llt.v24i1.2842

Wolniak, R., & Hąbek, P. (2016). Assessing the quality of corporate social responsibility reports: The case of reporting practices in selected European Union member states. Quality & Quantity, 50(1), 399-420.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-014-0155-z

Wu, J., Guo, S., Huang, H., Liu, W., & Xiang, Y. (2018). Information and communications technologies for sustainable development goals: State-of-the-art, needs and perspectives. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 20(3), 2389-2406. https://doi.org/10.1109/COMST.2018.2812301

Yu, D., & Bondi, M. (2019). A genre-based analysis of forward-looking statements in corporate social responsibility reports. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 36(3), 379-409.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088319841612