This column occasionally chronicles the overt and covert tactics employed by anti-business crusaders, many of whom object, at the most fundamental levels, to the very existence and mission of the modern corporation as we know it. Their fight is fought using protests, boycotts, shareholder resolutions, product disparagement, and such. But on combative occasions such as these, the other side’s rhetoric is, at least, recognizable and debatable.

A far less defensible threat emerges, however, when one stops to consider the permeating influence of the crusaders’ nomenclature that has taken hold within the walls of boardrooms everywhere in the form of widely-adopted buzzwords such as “stakeholder” and “sustainability” – the use of which makes the utterer, regardless of personal ideology, feel forward-looking and right-thinking.

Given that language shapes our thinking and thinking, in turn, shapes our world, isn’t it time to take a closer look at how these buzzwords shift the balance of power and, more importantly, in whose favor that shift occurs? There are no universal definitions for the buzzwords – at least not yet. But it’s a vocabulary test that businesses will not want to fail.

Businesses used to be primarily accountable to their shareholders – an apparently antiquated view that’s been superseded by the concept of “stakeholder” accountability.

But just exactly who is a stakeholder? Anybody that wants to be, according to the corporate social responsibility (CSR) movement that gave birth to the “stakeholder” as the newly relocated center of gravity in the modern corporate universe.

In an era when environmentalists claim that greenhouse gas emissions from a company located on the other side of the world can impact global climate, virtually anyone can consider himself a stakeholder – and attempt to exert his will over virtually any (formerly) free enterprise.

According to Webster’s dictionary, “stakeholder” is merely a gambling term, the sole definition of which is one who “holds the stakes of a wager” between bettors. Now witness the stunning rehabilitation of the word when we consult the online source Wikipedia, which defines “stakeholder” as “everyone with an interest in what the entity does…. (including) not only its vendors, employees, and customers, but even members of a community where its offices or factory may affect the local economy or environment.” That certainly is a whopping promotion for such a scruffy little word.

We don’t have to look far to learn whose purposes this promotion serves: Wikipedia then defines CSR as “a company’s obligation to be accountable to all of its stakeholders in all its operations and activities with the aim of achieving sustainable development not only in the economical dimension but also in the social and environmental dimensions.”

Although “sustainable” development sounds like a sensible business practice, it’s a relative term that’s been hijacked to mean “organic” by environmental activists and companies marketing “organic” products.

But another meaning of “sustainable” development could simply be getting enhanced results with less effort. Biotechnology – a practice that is anathema to promoters of “organic” goods – allows us to do just that.

Seeds that have been engineered to withstand attacks by various blights and pests allow farmers to grow more crops using fewer resources and less land. Other biotechnologies allow dairy farmers to produce more milk with fewer cows, less feed, less water, and less space.

In 2002, Dr. Patrick Moore, cofounder of Greenpeace, said, “There’s a misconception that it would be better to go back to more primitive methods of agriculture because chemicals are bad or genetics is bad. This is not true. We need to use the science and technology we have developed in order to feed the world’s population… And the more yield we get per acre of land the less nature has to be destroyed to do that … It’s simple arithmetic. The more people there are, the more forest has to be cleared to feed them, and the only way to offset that is to have more yield per acre.”

If it is incumbent upon businesses to act “sustainably,” then they must start supporting biotechnology to feed the world’s growing population. Aren’t companies who are intimidated by activists into boycotting such advances guilty of social irresponsibility by squandering natural resources?

Word games cost more than just money.

Mr. Milloy publishes CSRwatch.com and is an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.