The Power of Buzzwords

How the World Economic Forum Shapes Global Discourse

The World Economic Forum (WEF) occupies a unique position in global politics. It is not a government, nor a corporation, nor a multilateral agency, but it functions as a hub where these entities converge. Each year at Davos, political leaders, CEOs, academics, and media figures gather to discuss global challenges and “solutions.” Yet, beyond the high-profile meetings, the WEF’s influence spreads through its careful use of language. Its preferred lexicon—“vibrant, sustainable, inclusive”—is more than decoration. These words are rhetorical tools designed to present the WEF’s ideology as morally compelling, future-oriented, and socially responsible.

The Function of Buzzwords

The appeal of “vibrant, sustainable, inclusive” lies in their vagueness. They are universally positive, yet so loosely defined that they can be applied to almost any context. This flexibility allows them to act as a form of linguistic glue, holding together diverse constituencies under a shared but ambiguous vision.

• Vibrant implies dynamism and cultural richness, suggesting that economies and communities under the WEF’s vision will not be sterile but lively and prosperous.

• Sustainable borrows moral authority from environmentalism, assuring the public that growth will not come at the expense of future generations.

• Inclusive signals fairness and equity, presenting globalization as an engine of shared prosperity rather than inequality.

Together, the trio provides what can be called a moral shield: a set of concepts that disarm criticism and project legitimacy. To oppose them is difficult, since who could reasonably be against vibrancy, sustainability, or inclusion? Yet their vagueness allows elites to make sweeping claims without tying themselves to measurable obligations.

The Diffusion of WEF Language

The Forum’s linguistic influence does not remain confined to its own publications. The same buzzwords cascade into governments, corporations, and cultural institutions, subtly aligning local agendas with the WEF’s global narrative.

• Governments and City Councils: Urban plans frequently promise “vibrant, sustainable, and inclusive” futures. This framing positions local authorities as progressive and globally connected, even when underlying policies may foster gentrification or fail to address inequality.

• Corporate ESG Reports: Environmental, Social, and Governance frameworks offer businesses a ready-made vocabulary of virtue. A company that pledges to foster an “inclusive workplace” or support “sustainable communities” may not change its profit-driven practices, but the language enhances its legitimacy.

• Universities and Cultural Institutions: Mission statements echo the same lexicon, promising to cultivate “vibrant campus life” and “inclusive education.” In doing so, they align themselves with global agendas that reinforce their reputational capital.

This diffusion illustrates how the WEF’s buzzwords serve as cultural software, embedding its ideological assumptions into everyday institutional discourse. Over time, repetition normalizes the view that the WEF’s framework is not one option among many but the natural, inevitable path forward.

Stakeholder Capitalism or Managed Socialism?

The deeper question concerns the economic vision underlying this rhetoric. Officially, the WEF promotes “stakeholder capitalism,” a model in which corporations are said to serve not just shareholders but also employees, communities, and the environment. At first glance, this appears to soften the harsher edges of free-market capitalism, spreading benefits more widely. Yet critics argue that stakeholder capitalism may be less about sharing power than about consolidating control.

In practice, stakeholder capitalism often means that corporations and international bodies, not democratic governments, define what counts as sustainability or inclusivity. This centralization of decision-making can erode accountability, giving unelected elites authority over policies that affect billions of people.

Here lies the tension: while the WEF claims to support capitalism “for all,” its proposals frequently point toward a system where property rights and personal autonomy are curtailed for the majority, under the rationale of serving the common good. The famous slogan often attributed to the Forum—“You will own nothing and be happy”—captures this suspicion. Even if mischaracterized or taken out of context, it reflects a genuine anxiety that the end goal is not expanded capitalism but a form of managed socialism: one where elites retain ownership and control, while ordinary people rent or subscribe to the essentials of life.

In such a system, individuals would enjoy fewer property rights than today, with assets concentrated in the hands of corporations aligned with global governance frameworks. For the masses, the promise of inclusivity could mean guaranteed access to basic services, but only within a tightly managed framework that limits autonomy. The vibrant, sustainable, inclusive narrative thus acts as the rhetorical coating on a vision where freedom is exchanged for security, and ownership for access.

Language as Soft Power

Why does this matter? Because language shapes perception, and perception shapes consent. By saturating policy discourse with its preferred buzzwords, the WEF cultivates a global environment where its ideological vision appears not only plausible but desirable. It shifts the terrain of debate: instead of asking whether globalization and corporate power should dominate the future, the public is encouraged to ask only how to make globalization more vibrant, sustainable, and inclusive.

This is the essence of soft power—not forcing compliance, but shaping the horizon of what people believe is possible and legitimate. Through repetition across governments, corporations, and universities, the WEF’s vocabulary becomes a background assumption of modern life, guiding public expectations and narrowing political imagination.

Conclusion

The words “vibrant, sustainable, inclusive” are more than empty slogans. They are tools of persuasion, carefully deployed to frame the World Economic Forum’s vision as morally and socially desirable. Their diffusion into institutions worldwide demonstrates the Forum’s capacity to shape not only policy but also the cultural fabric of discourse itself. Yet beneath their optimistic glow lies an unresolved tension: is the Forum working toward a capitalism that genuinely benefits all, or toward a “stakeholder” system that consolidates elite control while offering the masses a managed form of socialism with diminished property rights?

By interrogating the language, we uncover the stakes. The future described as vibrant, sustainable, and inclusive may also be one in which autonomy and ownership are quietly eroded, replaced by a tightly curated version of progress designed by and for global elites.

Grant Mountjoy

Rock The Vote NZ