In today’s global economy, a company’s success depends not only on what it sells, but on what it represents. With messages traveling across continents in seconds, the public now holds brands to a higher standard than ever before. Reputation is no longer managed within borders—it is shaped through stories, expectations, and perceptions in every market a company enters. At the heart of this global reputation lies communication, not just as a support function but as a strategic driver of identity, trust, and purpose.

The international communicator is no longer a translator of press releases. Instead, they are cultural interpreters and brand stewards, responsible for aligning corporate values with local realities. This is where Arthur W. Page’s foundational belief in “telling the truth and proving it with action” finds renewed relevance. As companies cross borders, they must articulate who they are in ways that resonate with people from different backgrounds, with different histories, and often, different expectations.

A strong global identity is not built through slogans but through the consistent communication of purpose. Companies like Unilever illustrate this well. Across regions, Unilever has maintained a clear focus on sustainability and social impact, yet the way these values are communicated varies. In India, Lifebuoy soap promotes child health through handwashing campaigns that tie into local rituals and family roles. In the United Kingdom, Dove emphasizes media literacy and self-esteem, aligning with broader social conversations. The message remains rooted in shared corporate values, but it is adjusted to fit the cultural texture of each community. This delicate balance—between a unified brand identity and localized expression—is the essence of strategic global communication.

Corporate values must also live beyond campaign language. They must be expressed through authentic, ongoing stories. Microsoft’s emphasis on accessibility and inclusion is not confined to mission statements. It’s communicated through case studies of real people using its technology—stories that highlight the human impact of its products. These narratives, shared across geographies, carry emotional weight because they show rather than tell. They turn abstract values into lived experiences. Communication, in this case, becomes a bridge between purpose and perception.

Diversity has emerged as another defining challenge and opportunity in global communication. It is easy to declare a commitment to inclusion, but translating that commitment into meaning across different cultures takes more than good intentions. Airbnb’s “We Accept” campaign responded to global divisions by promoting belonging. However, it was not presented as a one-size-fits-all message. In Brazil, the focus centered on racial equality and social integration. In Japan, the tone highlighted respect and harmony. In every case, the global value—acceptance—was adapted to resonate with local cultural norms. This kind of framing demonstrates how international communicators must balance emotional consistency with cultural fluency.

Knowledge, too, is a critical asset in global corporations. But the value of knowledge is only realized when it is shared. Communication professionals enable this through internal storytelling platforms, transparent feedback channels, and leadership engagement. Coca-Cola has long been a leader in this area, fostering global exchange by enabling employees to share their local experiences across the company. These stories not only spread innovation but also reinforce a shared culture, creating a sense of unity among employees from vastly different regions.

What all these efforts demonstrate is that communication in international markets is not simply about pushing messages outward. It is about dialogue, listening, and adaptation. Arthur Page emphasized that “public perception is determined 90 percent by what you do and 10 percent by what you say,” but in today’s world, what you say is what allows people to see what you do—and to believe in it. The communicator’s job is to ensure that the company’s intentions are made visible and credible in every community it touches.

In the end, international communication is an act of alignment. It aligns business strategy with human values, global ambition with local culture, and organizational purpose with stakeholder expectations. When done well, it builds trust that travels across borders. It turns a company’s actions into a narrative that people everywhere can understand and support. And in a world that is more interconnected—and more scrutinized—than ever before, that kind of trust is a company’s most enduring asset.

In a global marketplace, what companies say is important—but how they say it can be even more powerful. This is the essence of framing: the strategic selection and presentation of information to shape public perception. Whether it’s a press release, advertisement, or product launch, framing helps determine which elements of a message are spotlighted and which are obscured. In international markets, where cultural expectations vary widely, framing becomes not just a communication tool but a survival strategy.

A prime example of framing at work is Nike’s “You Can’t Stop Us” campaign. Launched during the global challenge of the COVID‑19 pandemic, the campaign uses a powerful split‑screen montage of athletes overcoming obstacles—juxtaposing scenes of perseverance from diverse backgrounds to underscore themes of unity and resilience. What Nike includes in the frame are universal values—determination, diversity, shared struggle—while consciously excluding explicit references to particular political events or countries. This selective storytelling ensures the message resonates across borders without triggering local sensitivities.

In this campaign, framing works by presenting a narrative of strength in adversity that transcends cultural differences. The editing stitches together athletic feats from across the world, appealing to a shared human spirit while avoiding regional discord or controversy. It is classic second‑level agenda setting: not just telling audiences what to think about (the pandemic or social issues), but how to think about them—through a lens of hope and collective agency .

What Nike chose to keep in the frame were images of athletes persevering—symbolic representations of unity and human potential. What Nike omitted were direct depictions of political protests, critical slogans, or overt calls to action. This framing allowed markets from Tokyo to São Paulo to embrace the message without cultural or political friction.

Importantly, framing is never neutral. Every communication decision—what images are shown, which stories are told, and which are omitted—reflects underlying values and strategic choices. In the case of “You Can’t Stop Us,” Nike harnessed framing to maintain global coherence while appealing to local emotional universals: overcoming hardship together.

Framing has broad implications beyond advertising. It influences public health messaging, political communication, and consumer decision‑making. Research shows that how options are framed—emphasizing losses versus gains, for example—can significantly alter choices, a phenomenon known as the framing effect. This psychological insight reinforces why communicators must be deliberate about framing: it shapes perception, attitudes, and behavior.

In international contexts, effective framing requires deep cultural insight. A message framed around individual achievement in the U.S. might be reframed around family or collective success in more collectivist societies. In every locale, communicators must decide what to highlight and what to leave out based on local norms, associations, and sensitivities.

Ultimately, framing is both an art and a science. It is the invisible hand that guides attention, emotion, and meaning. In the global marketplace, the difference between success and misfire often lies not just in what a brand says, but how it chooses to show—and not show—it.

Sources:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/cognition-thought-process
https://marketingmaverick.io/p/you-can-t-stop-us-campaign-by-nike
https://masscommtheory.com/theory-overviews/framing-theory

In today’s volatile business environment, crises are inevitable. Whether caused by a data breach, a public health incident, or a political controversy, a crisis can severely damage a company’s reputation and erode public trust. The role of crisis communication, therefore, becomes critical. It is not simply about damage control; it is about managing perceptions, sustaining confidence, and guiding both internal and external stakeholders through uncertainty. In Southeast Asia—a region marked by cultural diversity, regulatory variation, and different media freedoms—these challenges are magnified, demanding a more nuanced and locally grounded approach.

Crisis communication serves multiple overlapping functions. Its first task is to protect and preserve the organization’s public image. This involves releasing accurate and timely information, demonstrating accountability, and providing a clear outline of the steps being taken to resolve the issue. A second key function is stabilizing the internal environment. Employees, suppliers, and partners must be informed and assured that the organization is taking control of the situation. The third function centers on rebuilding or reinforcing trust among the public and stakeholders by reinforcing values, showing empathy, and outlining long-term solutions. Beyond these, crisis communication plays a role in helping stakeholders understand the situation—a function known as sense-making. It shapes how the crisis is perceived and what narrative emerges. Lastly, a vital but often overlooked function is learning. Crises provide an opportunity for companies to reflect, adapt, and become more resilient.

Managing crises in Southeast Asia brings a layer of cultural and institutional complexity that organizations must navigate with care. The region includes a wide range of countries with distinct traditions, languages, governance systems, and expectations. For example, in Singapore, the public generally expects transparency, precision, and swift action, in alignment with the country’s efficient and highly regulated governance style. In contrast, countries like Indonesia and Thailand place strong cultural emphasis on hierarchy and face-saving. In such contexts, communication that is too blunt or confrontational may be viewed as disrespectful and can cause more harm than good. Instead, companies are often expected to convey concern in a tone that is respectful and deferential, even under urgent conditions.

Vietnam presents another interesting case, where state involvement in business communication is more pronounced. In many instances, companies must align their messaging with government guidelines before communicating publicly. This dynamic requires corporate communicators to weigh speed against procedural compliance, finding a careful balance between urgency and diplomacy. The cultural expectations around crisis response are equally distinct in Malaysia and the Philippines, where public skepticism toward corporate institutions tends to be more pronounced due to past controversies or weaker regulatory enforcement. In these environments, companies are under heightened scrutiny and must be especially transparent and consistent in their messaging.

A striking example of regional crisis management can be seen in the response of Grab, the Singapore-based super app, when faced with allegations of a data breach in 2020. The company had to navigate not only technical issues but also regulatory expectations and cultural sensitivities across multiple Southeast Asian markets. In Singapore, Grab issued a prompt public statement and engaged directly with the Personal Data Protection Commission. In countries like Indonesia and Malaysia, communication was more measured and coordinated with local government agencies before going public. This approach demonstrated an understanding that effective crisis communication in Southeast Asia is not merely about having the right content but delivering it with the right tone and timing, customized to each local context.

Managing corporate expectations before, during, and after a crisis in Southeast Asia requires a sophisticated awareness of the region’s cultural terrain. Expectations are not static—they are shaped by public trust in institutions, historical precedents, and the cultural context of communication itself. In some markets, people expect rapid disclosure and accountability. In others, trust is built through quiet assurances, community engagement, and careful navigation of official channels. Companies that misjudge these expectations risk miscommunication, backlash, or long-term reputational harm.

To succeed in this environment, organizations must invest in cultural intelligence, not just media training. They must establish crisis communication strategies that are regionally adaptable, conduct scenario planning based on realistic cultural assumptions, and engage in constant dialogue with stakeholders. In Southeast Asia, crisis communication is not just a reactive measure—it is a strategic asset. It helps build relationships, demonstrate leadership, and foster resilience in the face of uncertainty.

As businesses continue to expand in this fast-growing and diverse region, mastering the art of culturally sensitive crisis communication will be critical. It is not enough to speak; organizations must learn to listen, adapt, and respond in ways that resonate with the values and expectations of the communities they serve.

Sources:
https://www.straitstimes.com/tech/grab-fined-10000-for-fourth-data-privacy-breach-in-two-years
https://medium.com/grab/reflecting-on-the-five-years-of-bug-bounty-at-grab-adf1df55eb80
https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/issues/crisis-solutions/crisis-communication.html

In today’s globalized world, effective communication across cultures is a critical driver of success in international business. Multinational teams, virtual collaboration, and global expansions demand more than just translation or familiarity with etiquette—they require a deep understanding of how people from different backgrounds co-create meaning in real-time. Yet, traditional research in international business (IB) has often relied on broad cultural frameworks that overlook the dynamic nature of actual communication. A recent study by Szkudlarek, Nardon, Osland, and Zander (2020) pushes the field forward by advocating a shift from comparative cultural analysis to process-oriented intercultural communication.

Historically, cross-cultural research in IB has centered on comparing communication patterns across national cultures, often using models like Hofstede’s cultural dimensions. These approaches, while influential, can reinforce static stereotypes and fail to capture the complex, evolving nature of communication in multicultural work settings. The study challenges this paradigm by emphasizing the need to examine what happens when individuals from different cultures interact directly. This shift focuses on the process rather than pre-existing differences, arguing that meaning is constructed dynamically in context rather than dictated by fixed cultural norms.

One illustrative example comes from the Airbus A380 project, which involved engineering teams from Germany, France, Spain, and the United Kingdom. Although English was the designated working language, serious misunderstandings arose due to different assumptions about how to communicate and collaborate. French engineers preferred meticulous, up-front planning, while their British counterparts adopted a more flexible, trial-and-error style. These conflicting expectations resulted in technical inconsistencies and major project delays. Airbus eventually had to restructure its communication systems, recognizing that it was not enough to standardize language—they needed to create shared understanding in the moment, across cultural divides. This case exemplifies the importance of interactional processes, not just national communication styles.

The study also brings renewed attention to concepts from communication theory that are often overlooked in international business, such as the use of space (proxemics), eye contact (gaze), gestures (kinesics), and physical touch (haptics). These nonverbal elements play a powerful role in shaping how messages are interpreted and responded to in intercultural settings. For instance, what might be considered assertive eye contact in one culture could be seen as disrespectful or confrontational in another. Recognizing and adapting to these nuances is essential for building trust and cooperation across cultures.

In terms of research methodology, the authors advocate for deeper, context-rich approaches like ethnographic case studies. These allow researchers to observe intercultural communication as it unfolds, revealing subtleties and dynamics that are often missed in surveys or experimental studies. Ethnographies can uncover how meanings shift during conversations, how misunderstandings are resolved in real time, and how emotions influence the flow of dialogue. While this method demands time, cultural sensitivity, and close engagement with participants, it offers unparalleled insights into the micro-processes of global communication.

A particularly forward-looking argument in the study is the idea that communication doesn’t merely reflect culture—it helps create it. This concept, known as the communicative constitution of organizations (CCO), suggests that organizations are shaped by the way people communicate within them. Every meeting, conversation, and informal exchange contributes to the evolving culture of a team or company. In international business, this means that culture is not something imported or imposed; it is something negotiated and co-constructed every day through shared interactions.

Ultimately, the study urges us to move beyond static definitions and toward a relational, evolving understanding of communication in global business. Instead of asking how “Germans” or “Chinese” communicate, we should ask how people from these backgrounds build meaning together in specific contexts. This perspective not only improves theoretical understanding but also equips practitioners to lead more inclusive, effective, and agile organizations in a diverse world.

Communication in international business is not merely about transmitting information. It is about co-creating shared meaning, navigating ambiguity, and building relationships in a multicultural environment. Understanding this dynamic interplay of culture and communication is essential for anyone seeking to succeed on the global stage.

Sources:
https://pdf.sciencedirectassets.com
https://simpleflying.com/airbus-a380-computer-design-delay/

In today’s hyper-connected world, public relations (PR) professionals frequently engage audiences across diverse cultural landscapes. However, what works in one country may fall flat—or even cause offense—in another. To navigate this complexity, a country study becomes an indispensable tool for international PR campaigns. Let’s explore what a country study entails, why it matters, and how it connects with international PR methodologies.y entails, why it matters, and how it connects with international PR methodologies.

A country study is a structured analysis that helps organizations understand the social, political, economic, and cultural landscape of a target country. It typically begins with an overview of the political environment, examining the government structure, media freedom, and the country’s international relations. Next, the economic factors are considered, such as GDP, consumer spending habits, and labor laws relevant to PR efforts. The legal and regulatory framework is also critical, covering laws related to advertising, public relations, and data privacy. A deep understanding of the media landscape follows—identifying dominant media channels, key influencers, and public trust in various media sources. Cultural dimensions are perhaps the most nuanced. These include language and communication styles, core social norms and taboos, religious influences, and local holidays. Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, like individualism versus collectivism or power distance, can offer valuable insight here. Lastly, the technological infrastructure must be assessed, including internet penetration, mobile phone usage, and the popularity of digital platforms.

A well-executed country study helps PR professionals avoid cultural missteps that could damage reputation or alienate audiences. It allows messaging to be tailored in a way that resonates with local values and expectations, making communication more effective and respectful. It also enables teams to identify important local media figures, platforms, and trends that shape public opinion. Most importantly, it helps build trust with foreign audiences by demonstrating genuine cultural awareness and sensitivity. In short, investing in this kind of research strengthens both short-term campaign outcomes and long-term brand credibility.

One widely used method in international PR research is environmental scanning, which involves the continuous analysis of external conditions to identify trends, risks, and opportunities. This technique provides real-time awareness of political, social, or economic changes that could impact communications strategy. It allows organizations to be proactive—adjusting campaigns or messaging before crises occur or capitalizing on emerging opportunities. However, environmental scanning also has its downsides. The volume of information gathered can become overwhelming, particularly in fast-changing environments. Constant monitoring demands significant time and resources. Additionally, while it provides breadth, it may lack the depth of localized insights unless combined with in-country research.
Despite these challenges, environmental scanning remains a valuable complement to the country study. Together, they form a powerful foundation for informed, adaptable, and culturally intelligent PR strategies.

In global public relations, context is everything. A message that is compelling in New York might confuse audiences in Tokyo or offend those in Riyadh. That’s why a thorough country study, supported by techniques like environmental scanning, is crucial to any successful international PR strategy. Understanding the unique nuances of a nation is not just a smart move—it’s a respectful and ethical one.

Sources:
https://unacademy.com/content/nta-ugc/study-material/business-and-general-awareness/understanding-environmental-scanning/
https://nextlevelecommerce.co/the-importance-of-environmental-scanning-for-business-success/

Corporate identity refers to the visual and communicative elements that represent a company to the public, such as logos, branding, and messaging. It’s the outward expression of a company’s values and mission. Organizational identity, on the other hand, is the collective understanding within the organization about “who we are” as a company. It encompasses the shared beliefs, values, and norms that define the organization’s culture and operations. When these identities are misaligned, it can lead to confusion, mistrust, and a weakened brand reputation.

Examples of identity mismatches
BP’s “Beyond Petroleum” campaign
In the early 2000s, BP rebranded itself with the slogan “Beyond Petroleum,” signalling a commitment to renewable energy. However, the company’s core operations remained heavily focused on oil and gas. This discrepancy became glaringly apparent after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010, leading to public skepticism about BP’s environmental commitments.

The Body Shop’s ethical image
The Body Shop built its brand on ethical sourcing and social activism. However, reports of inconsistencies between its stated policies and actual practices led to public scrutiny. An ethical audit revealed gaps between the company’s communicated identity and its actual operations, undermining consumer trust.

Hilton Hotels’ dual branding
Hilton Hotels faced challenges when two corporate identities operated under the same brand name but communicated different brand promises. This led to confusion among consumers who perceived Hilton as a single entity, highlighting the risks of inconsistent corporate messaging.

Theoretical insights: Managing multiple organizational identities
Organizations often encompass multiple identities, especially when they operate across diverse markets or merge with other entities. Pratt and Foreman (2000) discuss how managers can respond to multiple organizational identities through strategies like:

• Compartmentalization: Maintaining separate identities for different units.
• Deletion: Eliminating conflicting identities.
• Integration: Combining identities into a cohesive whole.
• Aggregation: Allowing multiple identities to coexist without integration.

So, is it possible to have multiple organizational identities?
Yes, it’s possible—and sometimes beneficial—for organizations to have multiple identities. This multiplicity allows companies to cater to diverse markets, innovate across sectors, and adapt to changing environments. However, managing these identities requires clear communication, strategic alignment, and an understanding of how each identity serves the organization’s overarching goals.
In conclusion, aligning corporate and organizational identities is crucial for maintaining brand integrity and stakeholder trust. By understanding and strategically managing multiple identities, organizations can navigate complexities and position themselves effectively in the market.

Sources:
https://medium.com/%40thomasstllnwrk/how-companies-run-into-identity-crisis-2c7fe8e8557e
https://www.referenceforbusiness.com/encyclopedia/Con-Cos/Corporate-Identity.html
https://fastercapital.com/content/Brand-Identity–Branding-from-Within–How-Organizational-Culture-Shapes-Our-Public-Face.html
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317215835_Corporate_brand_idenity_and_image_to_align_or_separate_-_this_is_the_question

Coca-Cola, operating in over 200 countries, launched the “Share a Coke” campaign in Australia in 2011, replacing its iconic logo with popular local names on bottles. This personalized approach expanded to more than 80 countries, adapting to regional naming conventions and cultural nuances. The campaign’s success lay in its ability to foster personal connections, encouraging consumers to find bottles with their names or those of friends and share their experiences on social media. This strategy not only boosted sales but also enhanced brand engagement globally.

To comprehend how branding communication operates, the source–message–channel–receiver (SMCR) model, developed by David Berlo in 1960, offers valuable insights. This model outlines the communication process as follows:

• Source: The originator of the message—in branding, this is the company or brand.
• Message: The content being communicated, such as the brand’s values, stories, or campaigns.
• Channel: The medium through which the message is delivered, including television, social media, packaging, etc.
• Receiver: The target audience or consumers who interpret and respond to the message.

In the context of Coca-Cola’s campaign, the company (source) crafted a personalized message (“Share a Coke with [Name]”) delivered through various channels (bottles, advertisements, social media) to reach consumers (receivers), who then engaged with the brand by sharing their experiences.

Coca-Cola’s strategy also aligns with the principles of emotional branding, which focuses on creating a bond between the consumer and the product by evoking emotions. By personalizing bottles and encouraging sharing, Coca-Cola tapped into consumers’ feelings of connection and belonging, strengthening brand loyalty.

In summary, Coca-Cola’s “Share a Coke” campaign demonstrates effective global branding by combining personalization with consistent brand messaging. Understanding communication theories like the SMCR model and emotional branding provides deeper insight into how such campaigns resonate with audiences worldwide.

Sources:
https://smallbizoptimize.com/branding-case-studies/
https://theglobalreachvisionary.com/successful-case-studies-in-global-marketing-campaigns-lessons-from-coca-cola-and-nike/
https://www.toolshero.com/communication-methods/berlos-smcr-model-of-communication/
https://blog.hubspot.de/marketing/emotional-branding

1. What are the dangers of guilt by association?
The dangers of guilt by association in the context of the Peanut Corporation of America (PCA) salmonella crisis are evident in the collateral damage suffered by companies not directly involved in the recall. Despite not using PCA products, major peanut butter manufacturers experienced a drop in sales due to consumer perceptions associating them with the recall. This illustrates how guilt by association can significantly impact “innocent” companies, leading to financial losses and reputational damage.

2. Why did it take so long to warn consumers about the danger?
The delay in warning consumers about the danger of the salmonella outbreak can be attributed to several factors. The initial reports of salmonella illness were received by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in September 2008, but it took time to assess the clusters of illness and determine the source of the outbreak. Additionally, the investigation involved coordination between multiple agencies, including the CDC, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and state agencies, which contributed to the time taken to issue warnings to consumers.

3. How could you justify the Peanut Corporation of America’s limited crisis communication efforts? Do any theories or principles support their choices?
The limited crisis communication efforts of the PCA cannot be justified, as they failed to effectively address the severity of the situation. The company’s decision to remain quiet throughout the crisis exacerbated the damage and led to widespread public condemnation. From a theoretical perspective, a fragment of the PCA’s actions could be explained with the instructing and adjusting information theory. However it cannot be supported by crisis management principles, as proactive and transparent communication is essential in mitigating the impact of a crisis.

4. Was the Peanut Corporation of American in legal compliance throughout the case?
The Peanut Corporation of America (PCA) was not in legal compliance throughout the case. The company knowingly shipped out tainted products that had tested positive for salmonella, and evidence from internal emails revealed attempts to circumvent laboratory testing. Additionally, the PCA only reported negative test results to the government, failing to disclose the positive test findings. These actions demonstrate a clear violation of legal and ethical standards.

5. What does this case say about not acting on information discovered in scanning?
This case highlights the consequences of not acting on information discovered in scanning. The PCA’s failure to take appropriate action upon discovering salmonella contamination in its products led to a widespread outbreak, financial losses for the peanut industry and public health concerns. It underscores the importance of promptly addressing and rectifying issues identified through scanning processes to prevent further harm.

6. Why did the American Peanut Council feel the need to get involved?
The American Peanut Council felt the need to get involved in response to the extended product recall announced by the Peanut Corporation of America (PCA) in the public’s best interest. The Council worked closely with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other regulators to understand the extended recall and protect the entire industry. Their involvement aimed to reassure consumers and partners about the safety of unaffected products and to uphold the industry’s food safety practices and procedures.

7. How would you evaluate the government’s crisis communication efforts and why?
The government’s crisis communication efforts, particularly those of the CDC and FDA, were effective in providing consumers and partners with up-to-date information about the recalls and salmonella outbreak. The use of a wide range of social media channels, such as blogs, eCards, and social networking sites, helped people stay informed about the recalls and the outbreak. This multi-channel approach increased the likelihood of people finding the information they sought, demonstrating a proactive and comprehensive crisis communication strategy.