Responsibility, Ideology, and Identity: A Critical Discourse Analysis of BRICS’ Countries’ Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47941/jcp.3674Keywords:
BRICS, Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), Critical Discourse Analysis, Climate Responsibility, Collective IdentityAbstract
Purpose: This study examines how BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) discursively represent historical and future climate responsibilities in their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and explores the underlying ideological and identity dynamics.
Methodology: This study employs the Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) approach, particularly the three-dimensional model proposed by Fairclough, which involves describing the textual features, interpreting how responsibility claims are constructed, and explaining the relations between discursive patterns and ideological stance as well as identity formation. The data consist of 5 NDCs documents submitted by BRICS countries to the UNFCCC.
Findings: The results show that the BRICS countries employ foregrounding/backgrounding strategies in framing historical responsibility via highlighting developed countries’ historical emissions while downplaying their own, though with nuanced national variations, and modalization/modulation in articulating future responsibility, where divergent use of modal verbs and evaluative languages signals varying levels of ambition and priorities. These strategies reveal a shared equity-anchored ideological stance rooted in the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities (CDDR),” yet tensions between collective identity and individual national identity persist, as reflected in varied future commitment discourse.
Unique Contribution to Theory, Practice and Policy: This study contributes to understanding BRICS’ role global climate governance, highlighting their dual position as equity advocates and pragmatic actors navigating collective and national imperatives. It also suggests that international climate negotiations should recognize the divergent yet equity-centered discursive strategies adopted by BRICS countries, and create more flexible institutional arrangements that accommodate both collective climate ambitions and national developmental constraints
Downloads
References
Betzold, C., & Weiler, F. (2018). Development aid and adaptation to climate change in developing countries. Springer Nature.
Boyd, E., James, R. A., Jones, R. G., Young, H. R., & Otto, F. E. (2017). A typology of loss and damage perspectives. Nature Climate Change, 7(10), 723–729.
Buzan, B. (1993). From international system to international society: Structural realism and regime theory meet the English school. International Organization, 47(3), 327–352.
Caney, S. (2005). Cosmopolitan justice, responsibility, and global climate change. Law and Philosophy, 24(5), 463–487.
Climate Action Tracker. (2018). Retrieved from https://climateactiontracker.org
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis. Longman.
Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. Routledge.
Fløttum, K., & Gjerstad, Ø. (2017). Narratives in climate change discourse. WIREs: Climate Change, 8(1), e429.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. (2014). Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar (4th ed.). Routledge.
Hare, B., Ancygier, A., de Marez, L., & Parra, P. Y. (2017). Facilitating global transition: The role of nationally determined contributions in meeting the long-term temperature goal of the Paris Agreement. Climate Analytics.
Herrera, O., Alcaraz, O., & Sureda, B. (2025). Analysis of fairness and ambition considerations in nationally determined contributions. International Environment Agreement, 25, 359–378.
Hochstetler, K., & Milkoreit, M. (2014). Emerging powers in the climate negotiations: Shifting identity conceptions. Political Research Quarterly, 67(1), 224–236.
Hochstetler, K., & Milkoreit, M. (2015). Responsibilities in transition: Emerging powers in the climate change negotiations. Global Governance, 21, 205–226.
Holz, C., Cunliffe, G., Mbeva, K., Pauw, P. W., & Winkler, H. (2023). Tempering and enabling ambition: how equity is considered in domestic processes preparing NDCs. International Environment Agreement, 23, 271–292.
Hopper, P. J. (1979). Aspect and foregrounding in discourse. In Discourse and syntax (pp. 211–241). Brill.
Khalil, E. N. (2002). Grounding in text structure. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 22(2), 173–190.
Kiprizli, A. (2022). Through the lenses of morality and responsibility: BRICS, climate change and sustainable development. Journal of International Relations and Development, 25(6), 1123–1145.
Klöck, C., Molenaers, N., & Weiler, F. (2018). Responsibility, capacity, greenness or vulnerability? What explains the levels of climate aid provided by bilateral donors? Environmental Politics, 27(5), 892–916.
Mills-Novoa, M., & Liverman, D. M. (2019). Nationally determined contributions: material climate commitments and discursive positioning in the NDCs. WIREs: Climatic Change, 10(5), e589.
Okereke, C. (2010). Climate justice and globalisation: The political economy of climate change. Routledge.
Roberts, J. T., & Parks, B. C. (2007). A climate of injustice: Global inequality, North-South politics, and climate policy. MIT Press.
Rogelj, J., Den Elzen, M., Fransen, T., Fekete, H., Winkler, H., Schaeffer, R., & Meinshausen, M. (2016). Perspective: Paris Agreement climate proposals need boost to keep warming well below 2 degrees. Nature, 534(7609), 631–639.
Shue, H. (1999). Global environment and international inequality. International Affairs, 75(3), 531–545.
Sovacool, B. K. (2021). Who are the victims of low-carbon transitions? Towards a political ecology of climate change mitigation. Energy Research & Social Science, 73, 101916.
Van Dijk, T. A. (2008). Discourse and context: A sociocognitive approach. Cambridge University Press.
Weiler, F., Klöck, C., & Dornan, M. (2018). Vulnerability, good governance, or donor interests? The allocation of aid for climate change adaptation. World Development, 104, 65–77.
Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2001). Methods of critical discourse analysis: A summary of its history, important concepts and its developments. Sage.
Zhu, X., & Shang, X. (2024). Positioning as discursive struggle for equity: a critical discourse analysis of the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) of African countries. Critical Discourse Studies, 21(2), 218–233.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Xufeng Zhu, Shan Chen
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
