Language planning has often been discussed rather sceptically, but it can be successful. If it is, it can have a very broad impact on society, including important repercussions on language use in the business sphere. The examples described above show that backing by a state or a polity such as a self-governing region or province can be important for the success of language planning measures. However, these are often the subject of political conflict or may be challenged in court, and the resulting rulings may, in turn, influence further policy. The involvement of stakeholders is also a crucial factor for the success of language planning: for example, the active involvement of manufacturers has helped to create and implement an autochthonous/ purist terminology in France’s IT sector (Humbley 2008: 92). On the other hand, language status legislation that is not accepted by key social actors will be unable to shape language use in the business sphere (Sauliere 2014). Consequently, in the last few years several authors have recommended bottom-up approaches in language planning, which need to involve language users and their needs (Gaudin 2003; Rochard 2004; Sauliere 2014).
Besides language planning measures motivated by national language purism, there are other cases where language, especially in the business domain, is standardized in one form or another. Some examples are internationally agreed standards for accounting (see Chapter 21 of this handbook) or other terminology regulated by international organizations, such as the Combined Nomenclature used in the European Union. Invested with special powers by their organizations, terminology professionals may collaborate or negotiate with national language agencies. Such processes have remained outside the scope of this chapter because they are, as a rule, not motivated by purist concerns. Yet they certainly constitute a promising line of inquiry in their own right.