IT is straightforward for people who are doing good things to say what they are. Users of management dead language say they have a laser focus on operational excellence, look beyond themselves to make a difference, build social capital, drive a positive community impact, shape the landscape, and find a vibrant background for expanding offerings.

People who send this in to newspapers must know they've reached the point of putting everybody off? They might need to use these words to play the game with their work colleagues, but when they go public it's lazy and one might say insulting of them not to go to the trouble of working out what actions they in fact mean.

It will be awful if a takeover by this zombie language goes unchallenged, and tragic too because there's no doubt organisations do good things. Why use the opposite of public relations and instead be grotesque and alienating? It's not for me to say, but what might readers think if good newspapers like the Craven Herald took the step of refusing to print the vacuous bits?

I can see that when businesses display action to help the community it's for mutual advantage and they could be applauded for saying so - 'social capital'. But these terms are the opposite of openness. They are obfuscation. On the other hand if you're refurbishing schools, helping families stuck in poverty, providing job training, and trying your best for your customers, surely to goodness you can say so.

Hugh Lawrence