The Merriam Webster Dictionary defines Euphemistic language, or euphemism, as “the substitution of an agreeable or inoffensive expression for one that may offend or suggest something that is unpleasant.” In simpler terms, the purpose of euphemistic language is to make something seem less severe, serious, offensive, or unpleasant than it actually is. When it comes to ethics-related matters in organisations, euphemistic language serves to obscure the truth behind unscrupulous and often unsolicited unethical behaviours executed by individuals and groups in organisations.

Organisations and the media, in their own respective remits, hold the power to influence public opinion based on what they deem fit to publish and highlight to the public. This power, when exercised, can shape and shift the thoughts and opinions of their audience depending on how the message is conveyed. Organisations have the responsibility to report information to the public with honesty, integrity, and transparency. The language and style in which this information is communicated should reflect an organisation’s true commitment to promoting ethical behaviour.

The King IV Report on Corporate Governance™ implores organisations to cultivate an ethical culture by accurately and thoroughly providing relevant stakeholders and shareholders information about their financial performance. The Companies Act of 2008, while more focused on public companies, also emphasises the importance of transparency in reporting. However, there is a notable lack of official documentation or best-practice guidelines that directly address the critical importance of using appropriate language when reporting on unethical behaviour.

At the heart of this article is the need to address the obscuring of unethical, unscrupulous, and corrupt behaviour through euphemistic language, which makes such acts seem less consequential. This practice should be discontinued across organisations and the media. These actions are, without question, distasteful. When reported or written about, they should be presented as such to avoid misrepresenting their true nature.  Organisations and the media often use a range of euphemisms to avoid directly addressing the issue. For instance, “financial fraud” or “embezzlement of funds” is often described as “financial mismanagement.” Similarly, “bribery” can be downplayed as “unforeseen lapses in judgment,” and “state capture” can be softened to “political influence.”

An example of the deliberate downplay of unethical conduct through the use of euphemisms, can be found in Eskom’s 2018 integrated report, where it openly acknowledged the significant challenges it faced due to corruption. The report also highlighted that the entity was “under scrutiny from lenders, civil and governmental organisations, as well as the media, for poor governance.” The term “Poor governance”, a broad expression that encompasses a range of underlying behaviours, does not directly address the financial fraud within the organisation, which has largely stemmed from state capture and the actions of unscrupulous government officials. When viewed in this context, it becomes clear that the systemic and deeply rooted issues contributing to the country’s challenges are better understood. It is crucial to call things by their rightful names, regardless of the discomfort this may cause for those unwilling to confront the truth.

The Zondo Commission, in its examination of systemic corruption, also made recommendations for enhancing transparency and accountability at Eskom. A key critique highlighted the company’s failure to provide clear and candid communication to the public and shareholders regarding the full extent of corruption and its consequences.

This raises the question: who benefits from this practice, and who is being protected? In this context, one could argue that the use of euphemistic language serves to protect, or at least mitigate, the already damaged reputation of an organisation, shielding it from further backlash. Perhaps it is an attempt to improve the organisation’s relationship with its stakeholders and shareholders. More troubling, could it be aimed at protecting the interests of high-profile individuals? In all these scenarios, we observe the power dynamics at play in the dissemination of information. We are witnessing the true gatekeepers and decision-makers who determine what information is shared with the public. If this is a matter of controlling information, organisations must reconsider their commitment to fostering an ethical society.

This piece aims to highlight, succinctly, the dangers of euphemistic language and its potential to undermine genuine accountability. This is especially relevant within the channels through which such information is disseminated, and more specifically, the roles these channels play in perpetuating unethical behaviour. More importantly, it reflects the systemic rot embedded in many organisational cultures. Perhaps 2025 should be the year for organisations and the media to reflect on how they report on unethical behaviour. In the words of James Baldwin, “Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced.” 2025 is the year to confront unethical behaviour head-on, starting with the use of straightforward, candid, and unambiguous language when reporting such actions.

Siphiwayinkosi Mdluli is an Organisational Ethics Practitioner at The Ethics Institute.