Growing evidence indicates that corporate sustainability claims are often falsified. A 2021 investigation by the European Commission found that of the environmental claims examined, 42% were unsubstantiated, highlighting both the prevalence of greenwashing and the limitations of regulatory oversight. Because the majority of sustainability disclosures are self-reported, there is limited accountability in how firms present their environmental efforts. One way that companies can signal climate commitment is participation in voluntary sustainability frameworks such as the Science-Based targets initiative (SBTi). SBTi encourages firms to align emission reductions with the Paris Climate Agreement (2016). While sustainability subscriptions may attract environmentally conscious investors and consumers, it is unclear whether commitments correspond to changes in corporate signaling or if they’re a symbolic tool to encourage investment.

This study evaluates whether SBTi adoption corresponds with shifts in corporate sustainability disclosures. Using longitudinal linguistic analysis, the study applies Jensen-Shannon divergence, a measure of similarity between probability distributions, to measure changes in language across Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) themes in corporate reports. By comparing language patterns across SBTi’s adoption phases, pre-commitment, post-commitment, and post-validation, the analysis assesses whether SBTi adoption is associated with shifts in thematic and linguistic diversity in sustainability disclosures. Because firms self-select into SBTi, the analysis focuses on descriptive patterns in disclosure language rather than causal inference regarding the effects of framework adoption. Through this approach, the paper evaluates whether participation in SBTi is associated with substantive changes in corporate sustainability signaling over time.